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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 12-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5 and 6, “are” should be changed to --is--.
Claim 1, line 12, “conductors” should be changed to --conductor-- and
“are” should be changed to --is--.
Claim 3, line 2, the phrase “conductors of the at least one of the coaxial cables are composed of outer conductor wires” should be changed to --conductor of the at least one of the coaxial cables composed of the outer conductor wires are--.
Claim 4, line 2, before “at least” insert --the--.
Claim 5, line 5, delete “the grounding conductor is composed of a plurality of the”
Claim 5, line 6, before “bundled” insert --are--.
Claim 8, line 3, delete “plural” and change “configured the” to --configured each--.
Claim 12, line 5, change “are” to --is--.
Claim 13, line 2, change “at least one of the” insert --the at least one--.
Claim 13, line 3, change “cables” to --cable--.
Claim 14, lines 3-4, should be changed to --wherein the at least one coaxial cable covered by the grounding conductor is located in vicinity of the sheath.--
Claim 16, line 1, change “a” to --pitch--.
Claim 16, line 2, before “spiral” insert --the--.
Claim 17, line 1, change “a” to --pitch--.
Claim 17, line 2, before “spiral” insert --the--.
Claim 18, line 5, change “are” to --is--.
Claim 18, line 12, change “conductors” to --conductor-- and
“are” should be changed to --is--.
Claim 18, line 14, change “the”, second occurrence, to --a--.
Claim 19, line 2, before “at least” insert --the--.
Claim 19, line 3, change “cables” to --cable--.
Claim 20, lines 3-4, should be changed to --wherein the at least one coaxial cable covered by the grounding conductor is located in vicinity of the sheath.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of “all the coaxial cables, the winding directions of the plural grounding conductor wires are the same” as claimed in claims 6, 15, and 21. Paragraphs [0005], [0068], and [0070] of the application’s publication, disclose that some of the coaxial cables are covered by grounding conductors, not all. Noted that, if applicant determined that such limitations are supported in the as-filed application, then such features, all coaxial cables covered by grounding conductors, need to be shown in the drawings.
Claims 8, 10, and 17 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijff et al. (4358636) in view of Nohmi et al. (5463188).
Ijff et al. discloses a multicore cable comprising: coaxial cables (1 and 7-13), each comprising an inner conductor (2), an insulator (3) covering around the inner conductor, and an outer conductor (5) arranged around the insulator, the outer conductor being exposed, wherein the outer conductor of at least one of the coaxial cables is covered by a grounding conductor that is to be electrically grounded, and wherein each of the outer conductors of the coaxial cables is electrically grounded by contacting the grounding conductor or the outer conductor of another one of the coaxial cables, wherein the grounding conductor comprises grounding conductor wires (6) that are spirally wound (col. 4, lines 14, a helical layer of wires 6) (re-claims 1, 12, and 18). Ijff et al. also disclose the outer conductor (5) being a single-layer (re-claim 3).
Ijff et al. does not disclose the outer conductor of at least one of the coaxial cables composed of outer conductor wires, wherein the outer conductor wires are spirally wound in a direction that is opposite to a direction in which the grounding conductor wires are spirally wound (re-claims 1, 3, 12, and 18).
Nohmi et al. discloses a coaxial cable comprising an outer conductor (4) which is composed of outer conductor wires and covered by a ground conductor (5) comprised of ground conductor wires, wherein the outer conductor wires are spirally wound in a direction that is opposite to a direction in which the grounding conductor wires are spirally wound.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the outer conductor of Ijff et al. to comprise outer conductor wires which are spirally wound, as taught by Nohmi et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable, such as flexibility since an outer conductor is known to comprise either a braid or helically wound wires.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the spiral winding of the modified outer conductor wires of Ijff et al. to be opposite to the spiral winding of the ground conductor wires (6) as taught by Nohmi et al. to improve cable bending.
Re-claim 7, Nohmi et al. discloses the spiral winding pitch of the ground conductor wires (5) being different from that of the outer conductor wires (4) (col. 3, lines 27-37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Nohmi et al. when winding the outer conductor wires and the ground conductor wires in the modified cable of Ijff et al. to resist wire breakage (col. 1, lines 34-35).
Re-claims 9, 11, 16, and 18, Nohmi et al. discloses the spiral winding pitch of the ground conductor wires being larger than that of the outer conductor wires (5.7 mm and 4.5 mm respectively, col. 3, lines 27-37).
Re-claims 13 and 19, Ijff et al., as modified, discloses at least five other coaxial cables (7-13) being arranged spirally to surround at least one of the coaxial cables covered by the grounding conductor.
Re-claims 14, and 20, Ijff et al. discloses the coaxial cables being covered by a sheath (14), wherein the at least one coaxial cable (1) covered by the grounding conductor is located in vicinity of the sheath.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijff et al. in view of Nohmi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (10867725).
Ijff et al. and Nohmi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the outer diameter of each grounding conductor wire being more than 1.0 and less than 1.5 times the outer diameter of each outer conductor wire.
Huang et al. discloses a coaxial cable comprising a first set (5a) of wires (11) surrounded by a second set (5b) of wires (12), wherein the outer diameter of each second wire is more than 1.0 and less than 1.5 times the outer diameter of each first wire, col. 6 lines 26-32 (0.10/0.08 = 1.25 and 0.16/0.14 = 1.14).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the grounding wires and the outer conductor wires in the modified cable such that the outer diameter of each grounding conductor wire is more than 1.0 and less than 1.5 times the outer diameter of each outer conductor wire to improve the electrical shielding in the cable as taught by Huang et al. (col. 5 line 63 to col. 6 line 7).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijff et al. in view of Nohmi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asakura et al. (7044756).
Ijff et al. and Nohmi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the grounding wires being bundled together and connected to a grounding electrode.
Asakura et al. a coaxial cable (Fig. 7) comprising grounding wires (52) which are bundled together and connected to a grounding electrode.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to bundle the grounding wires of Ijff et al. together and connect to a grounding electrode as taught by Asakura et al. to prepare for a grounding connection.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohmi et al. in view of Ijff et al.
Nohmi et al. discloses a coaxial cable comprising an inner conductor (1); an insulator (2) covering around the inner conductor; an outer conductor (4) arranged around the insulator; and a ground conductor (5) covering the outer conductor, wherein the ground conductor (5) comprises ground conductor wires that are spirally wound, wherein the outer conductor (4) is composed of outer conductor wires that are spirally wound, wherein the winding direction of the out conductor wires is opposite from that of the ground conductor wires (Fig. 1), and wherein the winding pitch of the ground conductor wires is larger than that of the outer conductor wires (col. 3 lines 27-37) (re-claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 18).
Nohmi et al. does not disclose a plurality of said coaxial cables put together to form a multicore cable, and the outer conductor being exposed (re-claims 1, 12, and 18).
Ijff et al. discloses a multicore cable comprising a plurality of coaxial cables, and the outer conductors of the coaxial cables being exposed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of the coaxial cables of Nohmi et al., with the outer conductors of the coaxial cables being exposed, to form a multicore cable which is less bulky, good flexibility, and simplified ground connections as taught by Ijff et al.
It is noted that in the multicore cable taught by Nohmi et al. and Ijff et al., the winding directions of the ground conductor wires (5 of Nohmi), in all coaxial cables, are the same (i.e., a plurality of the same coaxial cables put together to form the multicore cable) (re-claims 6, 15, and 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4 and 5 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Ijff neither teaches nor suggests the spiral winding of outer conductor wires, and is silent to the spiral winding in a direction opposite to that of the grounding wires; and that Nohmi discloses spiral winding directions, but does not teach a combination with Ijff’s structure, nor does it address the present invention’s technical advantages. Examiner would disagree. Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, it has been held that the examiner's burden of establishing prima facie obviousness is satisfied by a showing of structural similarity between the claims and prior art; it does not require a showing of some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the structurally similar subject matter will have the same or a similar utility as that discovered by the applicant. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ 2d 1897.
Regarding amended claim 3, applicant argues that Ijff and Nohmi do not disclose a single-layer spiral winding. Examiner would disagree. Ijff discloses a single layer (5). Nohmi teaches a spiral winding (4). Ijff is modified by Nohmi, see the rejection above. Therefore, Ijff and Nohmi do teach a single-layer spiral winding.
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