Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/518,977

CORE WIRE AND METHOD OF MAKING SAME AND CABLE INCLUDING THE CORE WIRE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 25, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, CHAU N
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Foxconn (Kunshan) Computer Connector Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
1031 granted / 1520 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
70 currently pending
Career history
1590
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1520 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briscoe (6431216). Briscoe discloses a core wire comprising: an inner conductor (15, col. 3, lines 28-38); and an insulating layer (10) covering the inner conductor, wherein the inner conductor is non-spliced, the insulating layer includes a first semi-insulating layer (12) and a second semi-insulating layer (14), each of the first semi-insulating layer and the second semi-insulating layer has a groove that matchingly accommodates the shape of the inner conductor, and the first semi-insulating layer and the second semi-insulating layer are combined together (re-claim 1). Briscoe also discloses that the first semi-insulating layer and the second semi-insulating layer are buckled together (Fig. 1) (re-claim 2); and the inner conductor is formed by twisting multiple conductors (Fig. 1) (re-claim 7). It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, 3D printing process, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018). 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. Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe in view of Brorein et al. (3693250). Claims 3, 4, and 6 additionally recite the insulating layer being foamed PE and the air content in the insulating layer being between 35% and 80%. Brorein et al. discloses a core wire comprising an insulating layer (34), wherein the insulating layer is foamed PE, and the air content in the insulating layer is between 35% and 80% (col. 4, lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use foamed PE, as taught by Brorein et al., for the insulating layer of Briscoe to reduce dielectric constant around the conductor. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe. Claim 5 additionally recites the inner conductor being copper conductor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use copper for the inner conductor of Briscoe since copper is well-known in the art for its highly conductivity. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580099
Electrical cable that limits partial discharges
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573525
LEAD ALLOY BARRIER TAPE SPLICE FOR DOWNHOLE POWER CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567514
Low Sag Tree Wire
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567517
LOW-SMOKE, FLAME-RETARDANT DATA COMMUNICATION CABLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548691
CABLE CONNECTION COMPONENT AND CABLE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1520 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month