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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
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 1-12 & 14-16 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. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation to require “nonconductive ink applied over the conductive ink”. Claims 14-16 have been amended to require nonconductive ink instead of nonconductive material. However, there is no mention or description of nonconductive ink in the specification as filed. Only “nonconductive or insulative material” is mentioned throughout the specification. Thus, the claims will be interpreted with “nonconductive material” instead of “nonconductive ink”.
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, 4-12, & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2016/0260521) in view of Hu et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2014/0071216) and in further view of Masaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2019/0376851).
Regarding Claim 1, Namiki discloses a ribbon cable sensor assembly (i.e. flat cable 1) comprising:
a ribbon cable with respective paired conductors (i.e. insulated wires 2A/2B w/ conductors 3A/3B);
at least one sensor terminating area (i.e. soldering portions 5) positioned on the ribbon cable, the at least one sensor terminating area having insulation (i.e. insulation layer 4) removed from respective individual wires of the respective paired conductors to provide exposed individual conductors (i.e. conductors 3A/3B are exposed in the soldering portions 5); and
conductive material (i.e. solder paste) applied to respective exposed individual conductors in the at least one sensor terminating area to form at least one sensor (i.e. thermocouple or heat sensor) (Fig. 1-4C; Abstract; Paragraph 0024-0046).
Namiki does not explicitly disclose that the conductive material is conductive ink and nonconductive material applied over the conductive ink.
Hu teaches that that the conductive material is a conductive ink (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005, 0028-0031).
Hu teaches that it is well known in the art to use conductive ink as the conductive material to easily create an electrically conductive path by using an inkjet printer. It would have been obvious to use conductive ink as the conductive material of Namiki, as taught by Hu, in order to simplify creating the connection/sensor by applying the conductive ink on the individual conductors by using an inkjet printer.
Namiki in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose nonconductive material applied over the conductive ink.
Masaki teaches nonconductive material (i.e. resin matrix 614) applied over the conductive material (i.e. sensor 610 w/ thermocouple 612) (Fig. 8, 11; Paragraph 0048-0052).
Masaki teaches that it is well known in the art of thermocouples to use a resin or nonconductive material to cover the thermocouple and the conductive material in order to protect the thermocouple. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply nonconductive material such as resin over the conductive material/ink of Namiki in view of Hu, as taught by Masaki, in order to easily and effectively insulate the conductive ink of the sensor/thermocouple.
Regarding Claim 2, Namiki discloses that the at least one sensor terminating area are multiple sensor terminating areas (i.e. first soldering portion 5A & second soldering portion 5B) spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of the ribbon cable and the ate least one sensor are multiple sensors positioned in the multiple sensor terminating areas to allow the multiple sensors to sense different regions along the ribbon cable (Fig. 1, 4C; Paragraph 0033, 0039, 0043).
Regarding Claim 4, Namiki discloses that each sensor terminating area (i.e. soldering portions 5) of the multiple sensor terminating areas has a conductor window having insulation removed from respective individual wires (i.e. “windows” where insulation is removed are shown in the figures) (Fig. 1, 3A, 3B, 4A-4C; Paragraphs 0031, 0036-0038, 0041).
Regarding Claim 5, Namiki does not explicitly disclose that each conductor window is approximately 150 microns by approximately 400 microns.
Namiki is silent on the specific size of the areas in which insulation layer 4 is removed, all of which constitute “conductor windows”. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each of these conductor windows approximately 150 microns by approximately 400 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 6, Namiki discloses that the multiple sensors are temperature sensors (i.e. thermocouples or heat sensors) which monitor temperature in a given region along the ribbon cable sensor assembly (Paragraphs 0025, 0043).
Regarding Claim 7, Namiki does not explicitly disclose that the conductive ink is a conductive metal ink.
Hu teaches that that the conductive material is a conductive metal ink (i.e. silver ink) (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005, 0028-0031).
Hu teaches that it is well known in the art to use conductive metal ink as the conductive material to easily create an electrically conductive path by using an inkjet printer. It would have been obvious to use conductive metal ink as the conductive material of Namiki, as taught by Hu, in order to simplify creating the connection/sensor by applying the conductive material ink on the individual conductors by using an inkjet printer.
Regarding Claim 8, Namiki in view of Hu discloses that the silver ink (i.e. Novacetrix Metalon aqueous silver ink or NanoSilver ink) has approximately 0.3 micron or less diameter silver particles (i.e. 200 nm (0.2 µm) silver particles or 2 nm (0.002 µm) silver particles) (Hu: Abstract; Paragraphs 0005, 0028-0031).
Regarding Claim 9, Namiki in view of Hu does not explicitly disclose that the conductive ink has a resistivity of between approximately 0.03 mQ∙cm and approximately 5 mQ∙cm.
However, Namiki teaches that the conductive material is a solder paste (Paragraphs 0031 & 0039). It is well known in the art that solder and solder pastes have resistivities within the claimed range since it is essential to have a low resistivity when connecting conductors with such a solder in order to not degrade or add resistance to those connections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive material/ solder paste have a resistivity of between approximately 0.03 mQ∙cm and approximately 5 mQ∙cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the silver ink of Hu would have a resistivity within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 10, Namiki does not explicitly disclose that the conductive ink is diluted with between approximately 0.5% to approximately 3% solvent.
However, Namiki teaches that the conductive material is a solder paste (Paragraphs 0031 & 0039). It is well known in the art that solder pastes contain solvents which help control and maintain their viscosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive material/ solder paste diluted with between approximately 0.5% to approximately 3% solvent, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the silver ink of Hu comprises a solvent in which a metal such as silver is dissolved.
Regarding Claim 11, Namiki does not explicitly disclose that the conductive ink has a thickness of between approximately 20 microns to approximately 30 microns.
Namiki is silent on the specific thickness of the conductive material/solder paste. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the conductive material have a thickness of between approximately 20 microns to approximately 30 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the person applying the solder paste would select the amount and thickness of the material applied according to the needs of the connection.
Regarding Claim 12, Namiki does not explicitly disclose that the conductive ink is cured droplets of between approximately 150 microns to approximately 400 microns in diameter.
However, Namiki teaches that the conductive material is a solder paste (Paragraphs 0031 & 0039) and it is well known in the art that solder pastes are applied as a liquid and they harden and cure when exposed to air, UV light, or heat. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the droplets in between approximately 150 microns to approximately 400 microns in diameter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the person applying the solder paste would select the amount and diameter of the material applied according to the needs of the connection.
Regarding Claim 14, Namiki in view of Masaki discloses that the nonconductive material (i.e. resin matrix 614) is a UV-curable adhesive (i.e. silicone) (Masaki: Fig. 8, 11; Paragraph 0048-0052). Silicone is known in the art to be UV-curable.
Regarding Claim 15, Namiki in view of Masaki does not explicitly disclose that the nonconductive material is cured of droplets of between approximately 250 microns to approximately 500 microns in diameter.
However, Masaki teaches that the nonconductive material is a resin matrix made of silicone. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the silicone in droplets of between approximately 250 microns to approximately 500 microns in diameter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the person applying the silicone would select the amount and diameter of the material applied according to the amount and diameter needed to fully cover the sensor in order to protect it.
Regarding Claim 16, Namiki in view of Masaki that the nonconductive material has a thickness of between approximately 30 microns to approximately 50 microns.
However, Masaki teaches that the nonconductive material is a resin matrix made of silicone. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to apply the silicone to have a thickness of between approximately 30 microns to approximately 50 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the person applying the silicone would select the amount and thickness of the material applied according to the amount and thickness needed to fully cover the sensor in order to protect it.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2016/0260521) in view of Hu et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2014/0071216) and Masaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2019/0376851) and in further view of Rao et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2019/0212206).
Regarding Claim 3, Namiki in view of Hu & Masaki does not explicitly disclose that the ribbon cable sensor assembly is positioned in a catheter.
Rao teaches that the ribbon cable sensor assembly (i.e. thermocouple assembly 70 w/ leads 78) is positioned in a catheter (i.e. catheter 20) (Fig. 2, 3A, 4, 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0039, 0044-0046).
Rao teaches that it is well known in the art of catheters to position a ribbon cable assembly such as a thermocouple assembly in a catheter in order to provide more accurate temperature sensing at multiple locations. The flat cable taught by Namiki is used as a thermocouple or heat sensor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use and position the flat cable/ribbon cable assembly thermocouple of Namiki in a catheter, as taught by Rao, as a possible application of said cable assembly thermocouple in order to provide more accurate temperature sensing at multiple locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Namiki does not teach the claim as now amended which requires “conductive ink applied to respective exposed individual conductors in the at least one sensor terminating area to form at least one sensor; and nonconductive ink applied over the conductive ink”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed the new limitations in the rejection above. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that the use of solder paste, as disclosed by Namiki, is very different than the use of conductive ink, but the Applicant uses solder paste and conductive inks interchangeably as conductive material in the specification as filed. The Applicant does not make a distinction in the method of applying either solder paste or conductive inks.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights