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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “the micropores extending through the thickness of the polymer core and intersecting each other to form a network of interconnected chambers within the thickness of the polymer core, wherein the micropores are partially filled by the metallic structures such that the micropores comprise voids” as claimed in claims 1+21 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of “the micropores extending through the thickness of the polymer core and intersecting each other to form a network of interconnected chambers within the thickness of the polymer core, wherein the micropores are partially filled by the metallic structures such that the micropores comprise voids” as now cited in claims 21 and 12. As described in the specification paragraph [0033] of the application’s publication and shown in Figures 1 and 3, the polymer core comprises either micropores extending through the thickness of the polymer core, wherein the micropores are partially filled with metallic structures such that the micropores comprise voids, Fig. 1 OR micropores intersecting each other to form a network of interconnected chambers within the thickness of the polymer core, Fig. 3; but not both in one embodiment. Claims 13, 14, 22, and 23 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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, 2, 6-9, 11, 15-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (7737362) in view of Smith et al. (5631447).
Ogura discloses a cable comprising: an inner conductor (11); a dielectric layer (12) extending around the inner conductor; and a polymeric material (13-15) extending around the dielectric layer, the polymeric material comprising: a polymer core (14) comprising opposite first and second sides, the polymer core comprising a pore (col. 4, last two lines) that extends through the first and second sides of the polymer core (Fig. 2) such that the polymer core is porous; first and second metallic layers (13, 15) extending on the first and second sides, respectively, of the polymer core; and a metallic link (22, Fig. 2) extending through the pore from the first metallic layer to the second metallic layer such that the metallic link provides an electrically conductive path between the first and second metallic layers (re-claims 1 and 15).
Oruga does not disclose the pore being micropore and partially filled by the metallic link such that the pore comprises a void that extends through the first and second sides of the polymer core (re-claims 1 and 15).
Smith et al. discloses a polymeric material (Figs 2 & 4B) comprising a polymer core (10) comprising opposite first and second sides and including micropore (col. 4, lines 18-19, the through-holes are preferably not more than 200 micrometers, i.e., micropores), wherein the micropore is partially filled with a metallic link (conductive tubes 12) such that the micropore comprises a void that extends through the first and second sides.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the pore of Ogura to be micropore as taught by Smith et al. to meet the specific end use since Ogura discloses that the shielding effect can be adjusted by adjusting the shape, size, or the number of through-holes (col. 2, lines 53-67).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the metallic link (22) of Ogura, to be a tube instead of a rod, as taught by Smith et al. such that a void is contained within the modified micropore, to meet the specific end use since Ogura discloses that the shielding effect can be adjusted by adjusting the shape of the conductors contained in the resin material (col. 2, lines 53-67).
Ogura, as modified, also discloses the micropore comprising an interior surface of the polymer core, the metallic link comprising a layer extending on the interior surface (see Smith, Fig. 4B) (re-claim 2); the metallic link conductively bridging the first and second metallic layers together (re-claim 6); the metallic link being configured such that the polymeric material is electrically conductive through the thickness of the polymeric material (re-claim 7); the polymer core comprising a tape or a film (re-claims 8 and 24); at least one of the first metallic layer, the second metallic layer, or the metallic link comprising at least one of copper or silver (col. 6, line 34) (re-claim 9); the polymeric material defining an outer conductor of the cable (re-claim 11); an outer conductor extending around the dielectric layer, the outer conductor including the polymeric material (13-15) (re-claim 15); the internal metallic layers (22) conductively bridge the first and second metallic layers together (re-claim 16); and the cable further comprises a jacket (16) extending around the outer conductor (re-claim 19).
Re-claims 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the cable of Ogura with a shield layer extending around the outer conductor or underlying the outer conductor (around the dielectric layer) to increase the shielding effect in the cable since a cable having a double-shield structure, an outer conductor and a shield layer, is well-known in the art.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (2018/0075948) in view of Ogura and Smith et al.
Kobayashi discloses a cable comprising first and second inner conductors (21); first and second dielectric layers (22) extending around the first and second inner conductors respectively; and an outer conductor (7) extending around the dielectric layers, wherein the outer conductor includes a polymeric material comprising a polymer core (7a), wherein the polymer core comprises opposite first and second sides, wherein first and second metallic layers (7b, 7c) extending on the first and second sides, respectively of the polymer core (re-claims 15 and 20).
Kobayashi does not disclose the polymer core being porous with micropores that extend through the first and second sides of the polymer core and internal metallic layers extending within the micropores and configured such that the polymeric material is electrically conductive through the thickness of the polymeric material, wherein the micropores are partially filled by the metallic layers such that the micropores comprise voids that extend through the first and second sides of the polymer core (re-claim 15).
Ogura and Smith et al., see the rejection above with respect to claim 1, disclose a polymeric material comprising a polymer core being porous with micropores that extend through the first and second sides of the polymer core and internal metallic layers extending within the micropores and configured such that the polymeric material is electrically conductive through the thickness of the polymeric material, wherein the micropores are partially filled by the metallic layers such that the micropores comprise voids that extend through the first and second sides of the polymer core.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the polymeric material (7) of Kobayashi with the polymeric material taught by the combination of Ogura and Smith et al., see the above rejection with respect to claim 1, such that the shielding effect can be adjusted to meet the specific end use by adjusting thickness of the polymer core, the number of pores, the shape of the conductors contained in the resin material (Ogura, col. 2, lines 53-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 21-23 are found to be allowable. However, they have new matter situations, see 112(a) rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 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 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841