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 were received on March 16, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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) 24-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser (Pat Num 7,084,343) in view of Marciano-Agostinelli et al (Pat Num 5,010,209, herein referred to as Marciano). Visser discloses a cable (Figs 1-8) that exhibits superior corrosion resistance by preventing moisture from penetrating the conductive layers (Col 1, lines 4-6). Specifically, with respect to claim 24, Visser discloses a cable (Figs 4 & 6) comprising a center conductor (12), a cable insulator portion (14) surrounding the center conductor (12), a first shielding portion (16) surrounding the cable insulator portion (14), a second shielding portion (22) surrounding the first shielding portion (16), a composite portion (28) surrounding the second shielding portion (22), wherein the composite portion (28, Fig 6) comprising a composite portion first shield portion (60), a composite portion insulating portion (42) surrounding the composite portion first shield portion (60), a composite portion second shield portion (40) surrounding the composite portion insulating portion (42), a composite portion water blocking portion (46) surrounding the composite portion second shield portion (42), a sheath portion (24) surrounding the composite portion (28), wherein the composite portion insulator portion (42) is adjacent to the composite portion first shield portion (60), the composite portion second shield portion (22) is adjacent to the composite portion insulating portion (42), and the composite portion water blocking portion (46) is adjacent to the composite portion second shield portion (40), wherein the composite portion first shield portion (60), the composite portion insulating portion (42), the composite portion second shield portion (40), and the composite portion water blocking portion (46) form a single unit (Fig 6) that is configured to be applied to an outside of the second shielding portion (22) as the single unit (Fig 4), wherein the composite portion (28) being configured to be wound around the second shield portion (22) to form a folded seam (i.e. longitudinally wrapped) running in a direction of the center conductor (12) of the cable (10, Col 3, lines 40-47) and wherein the composite portion (28) provides radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a single tape so as to provide radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a compact cable (10, Col 1, lines 1-21). With respect to claim 25, Visser discloses that the cable insulator portion (14) surrounds the center conductor (12) in a radial direction (Fig 4), wherein the first shielding portion (16) surrounds the cable insulator portion (14) in the radial direction (Fig 4), the second shielding portion (22) surrounds the first shielding portion (16) in the radial direction (Fig 4), wherein the composite portion (28) surrounds the second shielding portion (22) in the radial direction (Fig 4), and the sheath portion (24) surrounds the composite portion (28) in the radial direction (Fig 4). With respect to claim 26, Visser discloses that the first shielding portion (16) may be made of an aluminum- polypropylene-aluminum layer (Cols 3 & 4, lines 63-66 & 23-28). With respect to claim 27, Visser discloses that the second shielding portion (22) may be an aluminum braid layer (Col 3, line 45). With respect to claim 28, Visser discloses that composite portion (28) is a four-layer tape (Fig 6). With respect to claim 29, Visser discloses that the composite portion water blocking portion (46) may be water blocking tape (Col 8, lines 10-15, i.e. wax polyester film tape layer). With respect to claim 31, Visser discloses a cable (Figs 4 & 6) comprising a center conductor (12), a cable insulator portion (14) structured and arranged to surround the center conductor (12), a shielding portion (16) structured and arranged to surround the cable insulator portion (14), and a composite water blocking shield (28) structured and arranged to surround the shielding portion (16), wherein the composite water blocking portion comprising a first shield portion (60), a insulator portion (42) structured and arranged to surround the first shield portion (60), a second shield portion (40) structured and arranged to surround the insulator portion (42), a water blocking portion (46) structured and arranged to surround the second shield portion (42), wherein the insulator portion (42) is adjacent to the first shield portion (60), the second shield portion (22) is adjacent to the insulating portion (42), and the water blocking portion (46) is adjacent to the second shield portion (40), wherein the first shield portion (60), the insulating portion (42), the second shield portion (40), and the water blocking portion (46) form a single tape that is structured and arranged to be applied to an outside of the second shielding portion (22) as the single unit (Fig 4), wherein the composite portion (28) being configured to be wound around the second shield portion (22) to form a folded seam (i.e. longitudinally wrapped) running in a direction of the center conductor (12) of the cable (10, Col 3, lines 40-47) and wherein the composite portion (28) provides radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a single tape so as to provide radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a compact cable (10, Col 1, lines 1-21). With respect to claim 32, Visser discloses that composite water blocking shield (28) is a four-layer tape (Fig 6). With respect to claim 34, Visser discloses that the composite portion water blocking portion (46) may be water blocking tape (Col 8, lines 10-15, i.e. wax polyester film tape layer). With respect to claim 35, Visser discloses that the composite water blocking shield (28) for use in a cable (10, Figs 4 & 6) comprising a first shield portion (60), an insulator portion (42) adjacent the first shield portion (60), a water blocking portion (46) structured and arranged to surround the insulator portion (42), wherein the first shield portion (60), the insulating portion (42), and the water blocking portion (46) form a single unit (Fig 6) that is to be applied to an outside of the second shielding portion (22) as the single unit (Fig 4), wherein the composite portion (28) being configured to be wound around the second shield portion (22) to form a folded seam (i.e. longitudinally wrapped) running in a direction of the center conductor (12) of the cable (10, Col 3, lines 40-47) and wherein the composite portion (28) provides radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a single tape so as to provide radio frequency shielding and water blocking in a compact cable (10, Col 1, lines 1-21). With respect to claim 36, Visser discloses that the composite water blocking shield (28) further comprises a second shield portion (40) adjacent the insulator portion (42). With respect to claim 37, Visser discloses that the insulator portion (42) is adjacent to the first shield portion (60), the second shield portion (22) is adjacent to the insulator portion (42), and the water blocking portion (46) is adjacent to the second shield portion (40). With respect to claim 39, Visser discloses that the water blocking portion (46) may be water blocking tape (Col 8, lines 10-15, i.e. wax polyester film tape layer).
However, Visser doesn’t necessarily disclose the composite portion water blocking portion being configured to be wound around the second shielding portion in a helical formation (claims 24, 31, and 35), nor the composite portion water blocking portion being an absorbent powder (claims 29, 33, and 38).
Marciano teaches a cable (Figs 1-12) that prevents moisture from migrating to interior shielding and conductors (Col 2, lines 28-31), while improving dielectric properties of the cable (Col 7, lines 54-56). Specifically, with respect to claims 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, and 38, Marciano teaches a cable (16, Figs 3-4) comprising a center conductor (2), a cable insulator portion (5) surrounding the center conductor (2), a shielding portion (8) surrounding the cable insulator portion (5), a composite water blocking portion (12) surrounding the shielding portion (8), and a sheath portion (24) surrounding the composite water blocking portion (12), wherein the water blocking portion (12) comprises an absorbent powder (14, Col 6, lines 54-57) in the form of a tape layer that is helically wrapped around the shielding portion (8, Col 6, lines 44-49 & 54-63, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the composite water blocking portion of the cable of Marciano to comprise an absorbent powder configuration and helical wrap the water blocking layer as opposed to longitudinal wrapping, as taught by Marciano because Marciano teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-12) that prevents moisture from migrating to interior shielding and conductors (Col 2, lines 28-31), while improving dielectric properties of the cable (Col 7, lines 54-56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2016, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Visser and Marciano fail to disclose or suggest any of the exemplary features recited in the independent claims.
B) The examiner has failed to establish a proper prima facie case of obviousness because Visser nor Marciano teach a water swellable tape being helically wound.
C) Marciano teaches a helically would metal tape, not a composite water blocking shield as required in the independent claims 24, 31, and 35.
D) Marciano doesn’t teach or suggest the water swellable particles being helically wrapped around anything.
With respect to arguments A, C, and D, the examiner respectfully traverses. It has been stated on the record, that Visser doesn’t disclose the composite portion water blocking portion being configured to be wound around the second shielding portion in a helical formation and contain absorbent powders. However, the examiner has relied on the teaching of Marciano, which suggest having a cable (Figs 1-12) that has a composite water blocking tape (12) comprising a non-woven porous substrate (13) laminated to a non-woven porous cover layer (15), wherein the cover layer (15) comprises water swellable particles (14, see below) prevents moisture from migrating to interior shielding and conductors (Col 2, lines 28-31), while improving dielectric properties of the cable (Col 7, lines 54-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
180
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marciano also teaches that the composite water swellable tape (12) may be helically wound inside the cable (see below). Specifically, Column 6, lines 44-49, state the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on the above, it is clearly that Marciano teaches a composite water blocking tape (12) layer comprising water swellable particles (14), wherein the tape (12) is helically wrapped around various layers.
With respect to argument B, the examiner respectfully traverses. The examiner understands that the MPEP requires that proper factual inquires must be present in order to establish a proper prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the MPEP states the following:
ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OBVIOUSNESS
II. THE BASIC FACTUAL INQUIRES OF GRAHAM v. JOHN DEERE CO.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
An invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; and
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Objective evidence relevant to the issue of obviousness must be evaluated by Office personnel. Id. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467. Such evidence, sometimes referred to as "secondary considerations," may include evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. The evidence may be included in the specification as filed, accompany the application on filing, or be provided in a timely manner at some other point during the prosecution. The weight to be given any objective evidence is made on a case-by-case basis. The mere fact that an applicant has presented evidence does not mean that the evidence is dispositive of the issue of obviousness.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The question of obviousness must be resolved on the basis of the factual inquiries set forth above. While each case is different and must be decided on its own facts, the Graham factors, including secondary considerations when present, are the controlling inquiries in any obviousness analysis. The Graham factors were reaffirmed and relied upon by the Supreme Court in its consideration and determination of obviousness in the fact situation presented in KSR, 550 U.S. at 406-07, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (2007). The Supreme Court has utilized the Graham factors in each of its obviousness decisions since Graham. See Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976); Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976); and Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). As stated by the Supreme Court in KSR, "While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls."KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting Federal Circuit statement with approval).
Given the guidelines above, the examiner respectfully submit the following:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art
It is understood in the art, that cables are commonly used in the various application and environments. Specifically, cables are often subject to outside environments wherein moisture and water penetration often penetrate a cable jacket/insulation and cause shorts, water-treeing, and/or rust/corrosion, thereby shorting the life expectancy of the cable (see below).
Applicants Specification states the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
108
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Visser, in Column 1, discloses the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
150
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Marciano, in Column 1, disclose the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
212
262
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Various methods have been established to try and prevent such damage for occurring such as flooding the cable with waterproofing liquids and/or gels, inserting composite tapes having metallic foil layers and/or water swellable particles.
Applicants Specification states the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
204
622
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
216
622
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Visser states in Column 1 the following:
PNG
media_image9.png
110
272
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Marciano states in Column 1 the following:
PNG
media_image10.png
376
254
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Clearly, as disclose above, there exist a common problem of moisture/water ingress of cable when utilized in an outside environment and several method of dealing with the problem of moisture/water ingress are known in the art.
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
As stated above, clearly Visser teaches all of the claimed invention, except, the composite portion water blocking portion being helically wound around the second shielding portion and comprising an absorbent powder. While the examiner knows that water blocking tapes comprising absorbent powders and being helically wound are well known in the art of cables to help combat the invasion of moisture/water, the examiner relies on the teaching of Marciano to teach that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-12) that prevents moisture from migrating to interior shielding and conductors (Col 2, lines 28-31), while improving dielectric properties of the cable (Col 7, lines 54-56).
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
PNG
media_image11.png
18
19
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It is clear, based on the disclosures of Visser, Marciano, and the Applicant’s Own Admission in the Background Section of the Application, that moisture/water migration into cables is a common problem in the art of cables. It is also clearly, that there have been various methods of trying to prevent moisture/water migration into cables, such as flooding the cables waterproofing liquids and/or gels, inserting composite tapes having metallic foil layers and/or water swellable particles. Since, Visser and Marciano are concerned with the same problem, it is the belief of the examiner, based on the teaching of both Visser and Marciano, that utilizing any of the above methods to try and achieve the prevention of moisture/water migration, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been established and therefore the 35 USC 103(a) rejection of claims 24-39 is proper and just.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights