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. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 21-22 in the reply filed on 01/27/26 is acknowledged. 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 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 of this title, 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. 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 -2 ,5,7,1 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 114498201A ) in view of Lukofsky et al. (US 2018/0219310 A1) hereinafter Lukofsky . Regarding c laim 1 , Chen discloses a hybrid flex cable (Fig.5) comprising: a first layer of conductive material (14) ; a first plurality of cables ( first set of 12 ) ; a first plurality of ground conductors (11) ; a second plurality of cables ( second set of 12) , wherein the first plurality of cables, the first plurality of ground conductors, and the second plurality of cables are arranged in a plane (see 11 and 12) near the first layer of conductive material (see 14) ; and an insulating layer (13) formed on the first layer of conductive material and around the first plurality of cables, the first plurality of ground conductors, and the second plurality of cables ( see Fig.5) . Chen is silent with respect to a plurality of power conductors and the first and second plurality of cables being micro-coax cables. Lukofsky discloses a plurality of power conductors (see micro-coax cables described in[ 0002] ) and the first and second plurality of cables being micro-coax cables (802 or 804;Fig.8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Lukofsky to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. Regarding c laim 2 , Chen discloses wherein the first layer of conductive material comprises copper (14 is made of copper) . Regarding claim 5 , a modified Chen discloses wherein the first plurality of power and ground conductors comprises a a power supply and one conductor for ground (11) , wherein the conductor for the power supply (see power supply cable modified by Lukovsky ) is insulated from the first layer of conductive material (14) . A modified Chen fails to specifically disclose two conductors for a power supply With respect to a second two conductors for a power supply , It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any number of power supply conductors in order to perform various circuit operations , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 7 , a modified Chen discloses wherein the hybrid flex cable comprises four first plurality of microcoax cables and two second microcoax cables (see microcoax cables in Fig.7 of Lukovsky ). Regarding c laim 1 2 , Chen discloses a second layer of conductive material over the insulating layer (see bottom layer of 14 opposite top layer of 14 which sandwiches 13) . Regarding c laim 21 , Chen discloses a first layer of conductive material (14) ; a first ground conductor (11) ; a plurality o f cables (12) , wherein the plurality of cables, the first ground conductor are arranged in a plane on or near the first layer of conductive material (see 11,12,14) ; and an insulating layer (13) formed on the first layer of conductive material and around the plurality of cables (12) and the first ground conductor (11) . Chen fails to specifically disclose a first power conductor and a plurality of microcoax cables. Chen is silent with respect to a first power conductor and the plurality of cables being micro-coax cables. Lukofsky discloses a power conductors (see micro-coax cables described in [0002]) and the first and second plurality of cables being micro-coax cables (802 or 804;Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Lukofsky to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lukofsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kennedy (US 5208426) . Regarding claim 3 , Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the first layer of conductive material comprises copper alloy. Kennedy discloses a first layer ( 4;Fig. 1 ) of conductive material comprises copper alloy (4 is made of copper alloy) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Kennedy to modify the cable of Chen in order to provide EMI shielding to a cable. Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lukofsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (US 2023/0215598) hereinafter Xie. Regarding claim 4, Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the insulating layer comprises polyimide. Xie discloses an insulating layer comprises polyimide (see claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Xie to modify the cable of Chen in order to provide electrical insulation and protection. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lukofsky as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kawate (US 20180261936 A1). Regarding claim 6 , Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the first plurality of power and ground conductors are formed of stranded wire. Kawate discloses stranded wire ([0037]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Kawate to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. Claim (s) 9 -10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen i n view of Lukofsky , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tang (US 2003/0221866 A1). Regarding claim 9, Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the first plurality of microcoax cables comprises a first microcoax cable, the first microcoax cable comprising a center conductor, an insulating layer, and an outer shield. Tang discloses wherein the first plurality of microcoax cables ( 1;Fig. 2A) comprises a first microcoax cable (1) , the first microcoax cable comprising a center conductor (10) , an insulating layer (11) , and an outer shield (12) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Tang to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. Regarding claim 10, Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the first microcoax cable is attached to a board by soldering a first side of the outer shield to a ground pad on the board and soldering a second side of the outer shield to the ground pad using jet soldering. Tang discloses wherein the first microcoax cable ( 13;Fig. 3A) is attached to a board (20) by soldering a first side of the outer shield (left bottom side of 12) to a ground pad (21) on the board and soldering a second side of the outer shield (right bottom side of shield 12) to the ground pad (21) using soldering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Tang to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. It is noted that the limitations of the method steps recited in claim 10 “ jet soldering ” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113 . Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lukofsky , in view of Tang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jannsen (WO 2015086833 A1). Regarding claim 11, Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the first microcoax cable is attached to a board by soldering the center conductor to a signal pad on the board using jet soldering. Jannsen discloses a cable ( 4;Fig. 1) is attached to a board by soldering the center conductor (6) to a signal pad (24) on the board (2) using soldering (solder attaches 6 to 24) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Jannsen to modify the cable of Chen in order to perform various circuit operations. It is noted that the limitations of the method steps recited in claim 10 “ jet soldering ” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113 . Allowab le Subject Matter Claim s 8,13-14 and 22 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. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 8 , The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach " wherein the first plurality of power and ground conductors are positioned in a plane with and between the first plurality of microcoax cables and the second plurality of microcoax cables. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 and 2 . Regarding claim 13-14 , The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach " wherein the first layer of conductive material electrically and physically contacts an outer shield on each of the first plurality of microcoax cables and each of the second plurality of microcoax cables " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 ,2, and 1 2. Regarding claim 22 , The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach " wherein the first power conductor is insulate from the first layer of conductive material by one of an insulating piece and a layer of insulation around the first power conductor" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 2 1 . Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant application claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance." Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272- 2229 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). /PETE T LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848