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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 3-4, in the reply filed on November 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation “[a] cable produced by covering with polytetrafluoroethylene and extrusion molding with a perfluoroalkoxy compound, comprising: a conductor; an insulation layer covering an outer surface of the conductor by longitudinal wrapping or spiral wrapping, and the insulation layer is made of polytetrafluoroethylene; and a skin layer, which is extrusion molded on an outer surface of the insulation layer, and the skin layer is made of a perfluoroalkoxy compound.” With regards to “[a] cable produced by covering with polytetrafluoroethylene and extrusion molding with a perfluoroalkoxy compound,” it is unclear what is being covered with the polytetrafluoroethylene. It is also unclear if the polytetrafluoroethylene of the preamble is the same or different from the polytetrafluoroethylene of the insulation layer. If different, the claim would require two different components that are polytetrafluoroethylene. Similarly, it is also unclear if the perfluoroalkoxy compound of the preamble is the same or different from the perfluoroalkoxy compound of the skin layer. Based on the drawings, the polytetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroalkoxy of the preamble appear to be the same as those in the body. It also appears that the conductor is intended to be covered with the polytetrafluoroethylene. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as encompassing this interpretation.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency on rejected claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2013/0062097 to Hammond.
Regarding claim 3, Hammond teaches a cable comprising a conductive core (conductor), an insulating tape (insulation layer) comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) wrapped spirally around the core (conductor), and an extruded (extrusion molded) outer layer (skin layer) of a fluoropolymer, including perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), shown on the outer surface of insulating tape (Hammond, abstract, Fig. 1, para 0012-0023, 0029, 0035-0039, 0042, 0044, claim 30), reading on the insulating tape (insulation layer) made of polytetrafluoroethylene covering an outer surface of the conductive core (conductor) by spirally wrapping and the skin layer being extrusion molded on an outer surface of the insulating tape (insulation layer). Examiner would also like to note that the limitations “cable produced by covering with polytetrafluoroethylene and extrusion molding with a perfluoroalkoxy compound” and “extrusion molded” are interpretated as a product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2013/0062097 to Hammond, as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 3, in the event it is shown that Hammond does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Hammond discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the cable of Hammond, wherein a conductive core is spirally wrapped with an insulating tape comprising polytetrafluoroethylene and an outer layer of perfluoroalkoxy is extruded on the outer surface of the insulating tape, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable components taught by Hammond and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Hammond based on the totality of the teachings of Hammond.
Regarding claim 4, Hammond teaches the outer protective layer having a thickness of 25 to 100 micron (0.025 to 0.1 mm) (Hammond, claim 31, para 0045). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed thickness range of 0.04 to 0.5 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2021200247, or US Pub. No. 2023/0154652, to Nakayama teaches a cable comprising a conductor with a resin tape wound around and an extruded sheath covering the resin tape and teaches the extruded sheath being PFA (perfluoroalkoxy alkane) and a specific embodiment having a thickness of 50 microns. US Pub. No. 2014/0377557 to Nakahashi teaches a cable comprising a conductor, binding tape wound together, and a sheath formed of a fluorine-including elastomer containing perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether component (perfluoroalkoxy compound) covering an outer periphery of the binding tape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789