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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on page 2 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, “A. Braided Superconductive Strand Architecture Claim 21 requires: a plurality of superconductive strands, arranged in a braided configuration, and interwoven to form a continuous circumferential shielding structure. While Reis discloses superconductive conductors and Chan discloses braided conductors, neither reference teaches or suggests: a braided structure composed of superconductive strands, configured as a circumferential shielding layer, with the specific structural characteristics now claimed. B. Structural Flexibility With Electrical Continuity The present claims further require that: the braided configuration permits bending of the cable while maintaining electrical continuity of the outer conductor. This limitation defines a structural relationship between braid geometry and electrical performance. Reis does not address flexible braided superconductive structures. Chan does not address superconductive materials or continuity under cryogenic deformation. Accordingly, the cited references fail to teach or suggest this feature”. The Office respectfully disagrees. As seen by Reis, Reis discusses a flexible ([0036]) cable having superconductive structures (20,20’; [0054]). Note also that the claim does not discuss “cryogenic deformation”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cryogenic deformation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 “foil layer disposed beneath the braided configuration” 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(a)
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 21 – 37 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claim 21 states: “the braided configuration permits bending of the cable while maintaining electrical continuity of the outer conductor”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss bending nor does not discuss electrical continuity.
Claim 22 states: “the braided configuration includes overlapping helical strand paths extending in opposing directions”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss overlapping helical strands nor opposing directions.
Claim 23 states “interstitial gaps between adjacent strands”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss gaps nor adjacent strands.
Claim 24 states “the braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands. Rather Applicant’s Specification at [0028] references the use of carriers on a braiding machine; the carriers are not part of the cable itself, as being claimed.
Claim 25 states “the superconductive strands comprise a plurality of discrete filaments”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss discrete filaments.
Claim 26 states: “repeated bending of the cable”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss repeated bending.
Claim 27 states: “the inner conductor and the outer conductor comprise different superconductive materials”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss the inner and outer conductors explicitly being formed of different materials.
Claim 29 states: “the outer conductor further comprises a foil layer disposed beneath the braided configuration”. The Specification shows the foil 18 surrounding the braid 16 in Figure 1, which is shown above the braid, not beneath.
Claim 31 states: “that maintains electrical continuity during bending of the cable”. The Specification does not discuss electrical continuity nor bending of the cable.
Claim 32 states: “wherein braiding comprises interweaving strands along opposing helical paths”. The Specification does not discuss interweaving strands along opposing helical paths.
Claim 33 states: “braiding comprises forming a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands. Rather Applicant’s Specification at [0028] references the use of carriers on a braiding machine; the carriers are not part of the cable itself, as being claimed.
Claim 34 states: “forming the superconductive strands as multi-filament conductors”. The Applicant’s Specification does not discuss forming the superconductive strands as multi-filament conductors.
Claim 35 states: “applying a foil layer between the dielectric layer and the braided outer conductor”. The Specification shows the foil 18 surrounding the braid 16 in Figure 1, which is shown above the braid, not beneath.
The Applicant’s Specification does not directly discuss “the braided configuration permits bending of the cable while maintaining electrical continuity of the outer conductor” nor “that maintains electrical continuity during bending of the cable”. The Applicant’s Specification is silent with respect to bending of the cable and with respect to electrical continuity. Note also that the Applicant’s Specification provides no critical values or quantified characteristics pertaining to an electrical continuity and degrees of bending. The Specification does not discuss overlapping helical strands, nor specificity to gaps between strands, does not discuss discrete filaments, does not discuss repeated bending of the cable.
Applicant’s Specification states at [0024] “A coaxial cable that uses a flexible braided outer conductor instead of a solid tube allows the use of manufacturing processes that are better suited for making coaxial cables with very small diameters. Braided outer conductors are constructed by weaving several tiny wires around the dielectric. This weaving process can be performed on much smaller diameters than a semi-rigid coaxial cable manufacturing method could use. A braided outer conductor also produces a coaxial cable that is flexible (instead of rigid), making it more user-friendly for installation and use.”.
Applicant’s Specification states at [0028] “A braided outer conductor 16 circumferentially surrounds the dielectric layer 14 with more than 90% coverage. The braided outer conductor 16 is formed of a second superconductive material. For example, the criss-crossed braid pattern of the outer conductor 16 may be made using a braiding machine with eight to sixteen braid carriers. Each braid carrier holds a spool of ultra-fine wires (40 AWG diameter and smaller) with one to ten wires on each spool (number of wire ends). A braid density setting of five to seventy-five picks per inch (PPI) may be used to create a braid with 90% or better coverage. There may be a total of one to one hundred different wires used to create the braid, depending on the final diameter of the micro coaxial cable 10”.
Applicant’s Specification states at [0032] “The micro coaxial cable 10 of the present embodiments will be used in the cryogenic high-vacuum environments of a cryostat or dilution refrigerator in application areas such as quantum computing as well as other low-temperature research near absolute zero. They carry DC and/or radio frequency electrical signals to electronic devices such as quantum computers held at temperatures near absolute zero. When the superconducting cable is cooled below its superconducting transition temperature, it becomes a nearly perfect electrical conductor providing little to no loss of signal performance.”
Applicant’s Specification states at [0033] “An objective of the embodiments of the invention is to provide a micro coaxial cable 10 that is flexible for ease of use, having a very small diameter for minimizing space and heat loads, and made from a superconducting material which minimizes heat loads from its inherently low thermal conductivity while maximizing electrical signal integrity due to its superconducting behavior. The invention is a much smaller diameter cable that is flexible while still retaining the superconducting behavior of the superconducting semi-rigid coaxial cable 10.”
Applicant’s Specification states at [0036] “Some of the illustrative aspects of the present invention may be advantageous in solving the problems herein described and other problems not discussed which are discoverable by a skilled artisan. While the above description contains much specificity, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any embodiment, but as exemplifications of the presented embodiments thereof. Many other ramifications and variations are possible within the teachings of the various embodiments. While the invention has been described with reference to exemplary embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment disclosed as the best or only mode contemplated for carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims. Also, in the drawings and the description, there have been disclosed exemplary embodiments of the invention and, although specific terms may have been employed, they are unless otherwise stated used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation, the scope of the invention therefore not being so limited. Moreover, the use of the terms first, second, etc. do not denote any order or importance, but rather the terms first, second, etc. are used to distinguish one element from another. Furthermore, the use of the terms a, an, etc. do not denote a limitation of quantity, but rather denote the presence of at least one of the referenced item. Thus, the scope of the invention should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, and not by the examples given.”
Therefore there is not support for the term “the braided configuration permits bending of the cable while maintaining electrical continuity of the outer conductor” and “that maintains electrical continuity during bending of the cable” in the claim language, as this term is not defined in the supporting disclosure. Therefore there is not support for the terms “helical strands”, “interstitial gaps”, “discrete filaments”, “repeated bending”, nor “interweaving” in the claim language, as the terms are not defined in the supporting disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22 – 30 and 32 – 37 are also rejected due to dependency from claims 21 and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1) discloses a cable (Fig 3,1-2; [0059]) comprising: an inner conductor (16,20; [0036,0043-0051,0054,0057]) formed of a superconductive material ([0043-0051,0054]); a dielectric layer (36; [0035,0059,0067]) circumferentially surrounding (see Fig 3) the inner conductor (16,20); and an outer conductor (20’; [0043-0063]) surrounding (see Fig 3) the dielectric layer (36) and comprising a plurality of superconductive ([0043-00450063] “aluminum”, “titanium”, “tin”) strands arranged in a braided configuration ([0054,0055,0057,0061,0062,0073] “braided” “weave” “to reduce AC losses”), wherein the plurality of superconductive strands are interwoven ([0054,0055,0057,0061,0062,0073] “braided” “weave”) to define a circumferential (see Fig 3) shielding ([0054,0060,0064,0073] “provides shielding” “to reduce AC losses”) structure, and wherein the braided configuration permits bending (see Fig 1 showing bends in cable about 12; [0033,0043,0056,0057] “bending is applied to the superconducting conductor 20 along its longitudinal direction”; note that the structure of Reis is flexible and would permit or allow bending) of the cable while maintaining electrical continuity ([0033,0043,0057] at least some electrical continuity would be maintained; note that the claim has not quantified nor defined the characteristics of this claimed “electrical continuity”; “not to cause a decrease in critical current of the superconducting conductor of greater than about 25%”) of the outer conductor (20’).
The Office recognizes that the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However the reference teaches all of the claimed structure and accordingly the reference would teach a cable configured to use the Meissner Effect to shield a transmitted signal from outside magnetic interference. Therefore the claimed effects and physical properties would be achieved by the reference(s). See MPEP 2112.01. If it is the Applicant’s position that this would not be the case (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed structure. Note also that the claim has not established the source of the transmitted signal.
Claim 21 states “while maintaining electrical continuity” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Claim 21 states “wherein the braided configuration permits bending”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding Claim 22, Reis further discloses the cable (Fig 3) of claim 21, wherein the braided ([0054]) configuration includes overlapping ([0054] “over one, under one”, “over two, under two”) helical (see Fig 3 showing 20 and 20’ in a helical or spiral path) strand paths extending in opposing directions (see Fig 3 showing spiraling in directions towards the upper end of Fig 3 and towards the lower end of Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 25, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim, including the superconducting material for inner and outer conductors.
Reis further discloses the cable (Fig 3) of claim 21, wherein the superconductive strands comprise a plurality of discrete filaments ([0045] “multifilament”).
Regarding Claim 26, Reis further discloses the cable (Fig 3) of claim 21, wherein the braided outer conductor is configured to maintain circumferential electrical continuity ([0033,0043,0057] at least some electrical continuity would be maintained; note that the claim has not quantified nor defined the characteristics of this claimed “electrical continuity”; “not to cause a decrease in critical current of the superconducting conductor of greater than about 25%”) during repeated bending(see Fig 1 showing bends in cable about 12; [0033,0043,0056,0057] “bending is applied to the superconducting conductor 20 along its longitudinal direction”; note that the structure of Reis is flexible and would permit or allow bending; [0033,0036] the structure is flexible and thus has flexibility to allow for bending) of the cable.
The Office recognizes that the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However the reference teaches all of the claimed structure and accordingly the reference would teach a cable configured to use the Meissner Effect to shield a transmitted signal from outside magnetic interference. Therefore the claimed effects and physical properties would be achieved by the reference(s). See MPEP 2112.01. If it is the Applicant’s position that this would not be the case (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed structure. Note also that the claim has not established the source of the transmitted signal.
Claim 26 states “configured to maintain circumferential electrical continuity during repeated bending of the cable” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Regarding Claim 28, Reis further discloses the cable (Fig 3) of claim 21, wherein the superconductive strands ([0043-0045,0050-0054]; “Nb3Sn”, “MgB2”) comprises a type-II superconductor.
Regarding Claim 31, Reis discloses a method ([0047,0051,0068], claim 81, claim 82) of making a cable (Fig 3,1-2), comprising: forming an inner conductor (16,20; [0036,0043-0045,0050,0051,0054,0057]) from a superconductive material ([0043-0045,0050-0051,0054]); circumferentially (see Fig 3) surrounding the inner conductor (16,20) with a dielectric layer (36; [0035,0067]); and braiding ([0043-0045,0054-0063]) a plurality of superconductive strands (see Fig 3; [0045,0054]) around the dielectric layer (36) to form an outer conductor (20’), wherein the braiding produces a flexible ([0033,0036]) shielding structure (20’) that maintains electrical continuity ([0033,0043,0057] at least some electrical continuity would be maintained; note that the claim has not quantified nor defined the characteristics of this claimed “electrical continuity”; “not to cause a decrease in critical current of the superconducting conductor of greater than about 25%”) during bending (see Fig 1 showing bends in cable about 12; [0033,0043,0056,0057] “bending is applied to the superconducting conductor 20 along its longitudinal direction”; note that the structure of Reis is flexible and would allow bending) of the cable (8).
The Office recognizes that the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However the reference teaches all of the claimed structure and accordingly the reference would teach a cable configured to use the Meissner Effect to shield a transmitted signal from outside magnetic interference. Therefore the claimed effects and physical properties would be achieved by the reference(s). See MPEP 2112.01. If it is the Applicant’s position that this would not be the case (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed structure. Note also that the claim has not established the source of the transmitted signal.
Claim 30 states “maintains electrical continuity during bending” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Regarding Claim 32, Reis further discloses the method ([0047,0051,0068], claim 81, claim 82; Fig 3) of claim 31, wherein braiding comprises interweaving ([0054] “over one, under one”, “over two, under two”) strands along opposing helical paths (see Fig 3 showing spiraling in directions towards the upper end of Fig 3 and towards the lower end of Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 34, Reis further discloses the method ([0047,0051,0068], claim 81, claim 82; Fig 3) of claim 31, further comprising forming the superconductive strands as multi-filament conductors ([0045] “multifilament”).
Regarding Claim 36, Reis further discloses the method ([0047,0051,0068], claim 81, claim 82; Fig 3) of claim 31, wherein the superconductive strands comprise a type-II superconductor ([0043-0045,0050-0054]; “Nb3Sn”, “MgB2”).
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.
Claim(s) 23, 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of McCabe (US 5,504,274).
Regarding Claim 23, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Reis does not explicitly disclose the cable of claim 21, wherein the braided configuration defines interstitial gaps between adjacent strands.
McCabe (US 5,504,274) teaches of a cable (Abstract, Fig 2) wherein a braided configuration (see Fig 2) defines interstitial gaps (10) between adjacent strands (8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as disclosed by Reis wherein the braided configuration defines interstitial gaps between adjacent strands as taught by McCabe, in order to provide flexibility, allow for manipulation, and provide a reduction in weight (Sato, Column 2, lines 1-5, Column 3, line 47-Column 4, line 5). Note that the claim has not quantified the size and number of gaps.
Regarding Claim 24, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim, including the superconducting material for inner and outer conductors.
Reis does not explicitly disclose the cable of claim 21, wherein the braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands.
McCabe (US 5,504,274) teaches of a cable (Abstract, Fig 2) wherein a braided configuration (6; see Fig 2) comprises a plurality of braided carriers (8) each including one or more strands (Column 3, line 47-Column 4, line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable with superconducting strands as disclosed by Reis wherein the braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more strands as taught by McCabe, in order to provide flexibility, allow for manipulation, allow for a desired picks per inch, and provide a reduction in weight (Sato, Column 2, lines 1-5, Column 3, line 47-Column 4, line 5), such that the braided configuration comprises a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands. Note that the claim has not quantified the size and number of gaps.
Regarding Claim 33, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim, including the superconducting material for inner and outer conductors.
Reis does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 31, wherein braiding comprises forming a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands.
McCabe (US 5,504,274) teaches of a cable (Abstract, Fig 2) wherein a braided configuration (6; see Fig 2) comprises a plurality of braided carriers (8) each including one or more strands (Column 3, line 47-Column 4, line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method with cable with superconducting strands as disclosed by Reis wherein braiding comprises forming a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more strands as taught by McCabe, in order to provide flexibility, allow for manipulation, allow for a desired picks per inch, and provide a reduction in weight (Sato, Column 2, lines 1-5, Column 3, line 47-Column 4, line 5), such that wherein braiding comprises forming a plurality of braided carriers each including one or more superconductive strands. Note that the claim has not quantified the size and number of gaps.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1) as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 27, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Reis does not disclose the cable of claim 21, wherein the inner conductor and the outer conductor comprise different superconductive materials.
However Reis teaches the superconducting material can be formed from a high temperature superconducting material ([0046]) or from a low temperature superconducting material ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as disclosed by Reis wherein the inner conductor and the outer conductor comprise different superconductive materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, such as to provide versatility from one cable that can provide shielding and reduce AC loss in a high temperature environment and also in a low temperature environment. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0012,0029], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Esker (US 5,949,018).
Regarding Claim 29, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim and Reis further discloses the cable (Fig 3) of claim 21, wherein the outer conductor (20’) further comprises a foil-like (see Fig 3 showing a thin material layer; [0069]) layer (40) disposed beneath the braided configuration (20’).
Reis does not explicitly disclose a foil layer.
Esker (US 5,949,018) teaches of a cable (Fig 1) wherein an outer conductor (14) comprises a foil layer (13; Column 2, lines 50-65) disposed beneath a braided configuration (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as disclosed by Reis wherein the outer conductor further comprises a foil layer disposed beneath the braided configuration as taught by Esker, in order to provide a material that is conductive (Reis, [0069]) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, such as to provide versatility from one cable that can provide shielding and reduce AC loss in a high temperature environment and also in a low temperature environment. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0030], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 35, Reis further discloses the method ([0047,0051,0068], claim 81, claim 82; Fig 3) of claim 31, further comprising applying a foil-like (see Fig 3 showing a thin material layer; [0069]) layer (40) between the dielectric layer (36) and the braided outer conductor (20’).
Reis does not explicitly disclose a foil layer.
Esker (US 5,949,018) teaches of a cable (Fig 1) wherein an outer conductor (14) comprises a foil layer (13; Column 2, lines 50-65) disposed beneath a braided configuration (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Reis comprising a foil layer as taught by Esker, in order to provide a material that is conductive (Reis, [0069]) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, such as to provide versatility from one cable that can provide shielding and reduce AC loss in a high temperature environment and also in a low temperature environment. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0030], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis (US 2005/0236175 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Park (US 2008/0047732 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Reis does not disclose the cable of claim 21, wherein the cable has an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less.
Park (US 2008/0047732 A1) teaches of a cable (Fig 2-3) wherein the cable has an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less ([0011,0022,0025,0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable having a first superconductive material as disclosed by Reis wherein the cable has an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less as taught by Park, in order to effectively provide a micro-coaxial cable, allow for usage in portable devices or instruments (Park, [0011,0022,0025,0035]), such that the first superconductive material with a diameter of 0.086 inches or less. A first superconductive material with a diameter of 0.086 inches or less would also increase the overall flexibility of the cable. Furthermore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable having a first superconductive material as taught by Reis comprising a diameter of 0.086 inches or less, 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, such as to increase flexibility of the overall cable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, [0026-0028], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 37, Reis discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Reis does not disclose the method of claim 31, wherein the cable is formed to have an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less.
Park (US 2008/0047732 A1) teaches of a cable (Fig 2-3) wherein the cable has an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less ([0011,0022,0025,0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method with the cable having a first superconductive material as disclosed by Reis wherein the cable is formed to have an outer diameter of 0.086 inches or less as taught by Park, in order to effectively provide a micro-coaxial cable, allow for usage in portable devices or instruments (Park, [0011,0022,0025,0035]), such that the first superconductive material with a diameter of 0.086 inches or less. A first superconductive material with a diameter of 0.086 inches or less would also increase the overall flexibility of the cable. Furthermore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable having a first superconductive material as taught by Reis comprising a diameter of 0.086 inches or less, 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, such as to increase flexibility of the overall cable. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, [0026-0028], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sato (US 5,012,045) teaches of a cable (Fig 4) wherein a braided configuration (42) defines interstitial gaps (see Fig 4 showing gaps between strands) between adjacent strands (Column 5, lines 1-60). This reference could be used in a 103 Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 pm.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896