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 “an outer sheath…having a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward” as claimed in claim 1; and “an inner surface of the shielding layer facing the insulation core wire is provided with hot melt adhesive” as claimed in claim 21 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 1, 13, 14, and 16-19 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. Specifically, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of “the round ring structures are integrally formed” as claimed in claim 1. Claims 13, 14, and 16-19 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21, line 2, “the insulation core wire” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 22 is 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.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (6740808) in view of Brandes et al. (6927342).
Chang discloses a cable (Fig. 3) comprising a pair of insulation core wires extending longitudinally parallel to each other (col. 3 lines 48-49), each of the insulation core wires having a central conductor and a core wire insulation layer wrapped around the central conductor, each of the core wire insulation layers having a round ring structure circumferentially surrounding the respective central conductor, the round ring structures being integrally formed and connected together; an insulation tape layer (22, col. 4 line 53) wound outside the core wire insulation layers in a longitudinal direction (col. 3, lines 58-59, the two conductors are coil up or enclosed with the strip insulator); a shielding layer (23, col. 4 lines 53-55) wrapped outside of the insulation tape layer; and outer sheath (41) formed of PET (col. 3 line 40) circumferentially wrapped around the outer peripheral surface of the shielding layer; and an air accommodating cavity (10) formed between the core wire insulation layers of the pair of insulation core wires and the insulation tape layer and accommodating air.
Chang does not disclose the shield layer having a first and second end bonded together forming a closed loop and the outer sheath having a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Chang, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the shield of Chang to have a first and second end bonded together forming a closed loop to improve the shielding effect in the cable since a shield having such configuration is well-known in the art.
Brandes et al. discloses a sheath (an insulating tape) which has a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward (col. 4 lines 21-24, the insulating tape…coated on one or both sides with adhesive, preferably a hot-melt adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide hot-melt adhesive on both sides of the PET outer sheath (41) of Chang to improve adhesion between the sheath and adjacent components as taught by Brandes et al.
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (11569008) in view of Kobayashi (2018/0075948) and Brandes et al.
Grant et al. discloses a cable comprising a pair of insulation core wires extending longitudinally parallel to each other (Fig. 1), each of the insulation core wires having a central conductor (11, 12) and a core wire insulation layer (21, 22) wrapped around the central conductor, each of the core wire insulation layers having a round ring structure circumferentially surrounding the respective central conductor, the round ring structures being connected together; an insulation tape layer (3) wound outside the core wire insulation layers in a longitudinal direction; a shielding layer (4) wrapped outside of the insulation tape layer; an outer sheath (5) formed of PET (col. 5, line 15) and circunferentially wrapped around the peripheral surface of the shielding layer; and an air accommodating cavity (re-claim 1).
Grant et al. does not disclose the shielding layer having a first and a second end bonded together forming a closed loop in a circumferential direction and the outer sheath having a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward (re-claim 1).
Kobayashi discloses a cable comprising a shielding layer (4) having a first end and a second end bonded together ([0045]) forming a closed loop in a circumferential direction. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the shielding layer of Grant et al. by longitudinally wrapping the shielding layer around the pair of wires; and bonding the first end and the second end of the shielding layer together forming a closed loop in a circumferential direction, to form a seal around the wires as taught by Kobayashi.
Brandes et al. discloses a sheath (an insulating tape) which has a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward (col. 4 lines 21-24, the insulating tape…coated on one or both sides with adhesive, preferably a hot-melt adhesive). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide hot-melt adhesive on both sides of the PET outer sheath (41) of Chang to improve adhesion between the sheath and adjacent components as taught by Brandes et al.
Re-claim 13, Grant et al. discloses the insulation tape layer deforming the core wire insulation layers of the pair of insulation core wires in a radial direction parallel to a line extending through the centers of the two central conductors of the pair of insulation core wires (Fig. 2, col.6 lines 37-50).
Re-claim 14, although not disclosed in Grant et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use PTFE for the tape layer of Grant et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since PTFE is well-known for being used as a tape layer in cables because of its low dielectric constant.
Re-claim 16, Grant et al. discloses the cable further comprising a first ground wire (61) arranged between the outer sheath and the shielding layer and pressed against an outer peripheral surface of the shielding layer.
Re-claim 17, Grant et al. discloses the cable further comprising a second ground wire (62), wherein the two ground wires are located on respective radially opposite sides of the pair of insulation core wires.
Re-claim 18, Grant et al. discloses the first ground wire being located on a side of the core wire insulation layer of one insulation core wire of the pair of insulation core wires away from the other insulation core wire of the pair of insulation wires in a radial direction.
Claims 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Brandes et al. and Sugiyama et al. (2016/0036112).
Kobayashi discloses a cable comprising a pair of insulation core wires extending longitudinally parallel to each other, each of the insulation core wires having a central conductor (21) and a core wire insulation layer (22) wrapped around the central conductor; an insulation tape layer (3) wound outside the core wire insulation layers in a longitudinal direction; a shielding layer (4) wrapped outside of the insulation tape layer and having a first and a second end bonded together ([0045], the overlapping portions are fixed to each other with the adhesive) forming a closed loop in a circumferential direction; an outer sheath (6a) wrapped outside the shielding layer, the outer sheath formed on PET ([0048]); and an air accommodating cavity formed between the core wire insulation layers of the pair of insulation core wires and the insulation tape layer, and accommodating air (re-claim 20).
Kobayashi does not disclose the PET outer sheath having a hot-melt inner adhesive side facing inward and a hot-melt outer adhesive side facing outward, and at least two of said cables forming a combined cable which comprises a total shielding layer wrapped outside said cables and a total outer sheath enclosing said cables and the total shielding layer (re-claim 20).
Brandes et al. discloses a sheath (an insulating tape) which has a form of a double layer of hot-melt PET with an inner adhesive side facing inward and an outer adhesive side facing outward (col. 4 lines 21-24, the insulating tape…coated on one or both sides with adhesive, preferably a hot-melt adhesive). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide hot-melt adhesive on both sides of the PET outer sheath (6a) of Kobayashi to improve adhesion between the sheath and adjacent components as taught by Brandes et al.
Sugiyama et al. discloses a combined cable (71) comprising at least two cables (61), a total shielding layer (72) wrapped outside the cables and enclosing both cables, and a total outer sheath (73) enclosing the cables and the total shielding layer (re-claim 20). Sugiyama et al. also discloses the combined cable having a substantially round structure (re-claim 23) and the cables being radially and symmetrically distributed with respect to the center of the combined cable (re-claim 24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to group at least two of the modified cables of Kobayashi and enclose them with a total shielding layer and a total outer sheath with the cables being radially and symmetrically distributed with respect to the center of the combined cable as taught by Sugiyama et al. to form a combined cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights