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 .
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 7 and 10 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 7, lines 1-2, “a first plurality of strips” is unclear to how these strips relate to “a first strip” cited in claim 1.
Claim 10 is included in this rejection because of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Epitaux et al. (2022/0216581).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Epitaux et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a dielectric body; first and second conductors embedded within the dielectric body and spaced apart from each other; and a shield around a periphery of the dielectric body, wherein the shield is adjacent the dielectric body, wherein the dielectric body includes at least a first strip along an edge of the dielectric body that is adjacent the shield, and wherein the dielectric body has, in cross-section, a non-homogenous dielectric property (re-claims 1, 17, and 20). Epitaux et al. also discloses that the apparatus is a cable and the dielectric body comprises, in cross-section, a first portion (not having the groove) with a first dielectric constant and a second portion (comprising the groove) with a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant, wherein the second portion is proximate to an inner surface of the shield and the second dielectric constant is less than the first dielectric constant (re-claims 2 and 21); the at least the first strip comprises an air gap with the second dielectric constant (re-claim 3); the apparatus is a twinaxial cable, and the one or more strips extend along the first portion of the periphery (re-claim 18). It is noted that since the apparatus of Epitaux et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the dielectric body is configured to enhance coupling of electromagnetic energy between the first and second conductors when signals are carried by the first and second conductors (re-claim 1); and the coupling of electromagnetic energy will be disrupted towards the shield and thereby enhance coupling of electromagnetic energy between the first and second conductors (re-claim 2).
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.
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.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 10, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (10890495) in view of Yamaura et al. (7534957).
Sugita et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a dielectric body (2); first and second conductors (3) embedded within the dielectric body and spaced apart from each other, wherein the dielectric body has, in cross-section, a non-homogenous dielectric property (re-claims 1, 17, and 20). Sugita et al. also discloses that the apparatus is a cable and the dielectric body comprises, in cross-section, a first portion (not having the grooves) with a first dielectric constant and a second portion (comprising the grooves) with a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant (re-claims 2 and 21); the at least first strip comprises an air gap with the second dielectric constant (re-claim 3); the at least first strip comprises a plurality of first strips that extend around an entirety of the periphery (re-claim 6); the plurality of first strips comprises air gaps with the second dielectric constant, wherein the individual strips of the first strips are spaced apart from each other by material having the first dielectric constant (re-claims 7 and 19); and the first strips extend around an entirety of the periphery (re-claim 10).
Sugita et al. does not disclose the apparatus comprising a shield around the periphery of the dielectric body and adjacent to the dielectric body (re-claims 1, 17, and 20).
Yamaura et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a dielectric body (11, Fig. 4A) and a shield (13) around the periphery of the dielectric body, wherein the shield is adjacent to the dielectric body.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to surround the dielectric body of Sugita et al. with a shield, as taught by Yamaura et al., to provide the apparatus with an outer electrode and/or a shield for the conductors therein.
It is noted that since the modified apparatus of Sugita et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the dielectric body is configured to enhance coupling of electromagnetic energy between the first and second conductors when signals are carried by the first and second conductors (re-claim 1); and the coupling of electromagnetic energy will be disrupted towards the shield and thereby enhance coupling of electromagnetic energy between the first and second conductors (re-claim 2).
Re-claim 18, Sugita et al. does not disclose the apparatus being a twinaxial cable. Yamaura et al. discloses the apparatus which can be a quad cable (Fig. 4) or a twinaxial cable (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the apparatus of Sugita et al. to be a twinaxial cable to meet the specific use of the resulting apparatus since it is taught by Yamaura et al. that an apparatus can comprise a quad cable or twinax cable depending on the specific end use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 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 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841