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, 7, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, before “at least” insert --the--.
Claim 7, line 3, change “the”, second occurrence, to --each--.
Claim 18, line 11, change “conductors” to --conductor-- and change “are” to --is--. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
ljff et al. does not disclose the outer conductor of the 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 ljff 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, ljff 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 ljff 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).
ljff 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 filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the claimed relationship between the outer conductor wires and the grounding conductor wires in the multicore cable structure, including the winding directions and the claimed arrangements of the grounding conductor wires.
Examiner would disagree because the combination of Ijff and Nohmi and the combination of Nohmi and Ijff do teach the claimed invention.
Specifically, Ijff discloses a multicore cable comprising a plurality of coaxial cables, each coaxial cable comprising outer conductor (5); and coaxial cable (1), located in the center of the multicore cable, additionally including grounding conductor wires (6) over the outer conductor (5). Nohmi discloses a coaxial cable comprising an outer conductor (4) composed of outer conductor wires which are spirally wound around the insulator (2) and surrounded by a grounding conductor (5) composed of grounding conductor wires, wherein the outer conductor wires are spirally wound in a direction that is opposite to that of the grounding conductor wires (col. 3 lines 27-37). Ijff is modified by Nohmi such that each outer conductor is composed of outer conductor wires spirally wound around each respective insulator, and that the outer conductor wires are spirally wound in a direction that is opposite to that of the grounding conductor wires. Therefore, the combination of Ijff and Nohmi discloses the claimed arrangement.
Combination of Nohmi and Ijff discloses the claimed arrangement as well. Specifically, Nohmi discloses a coaxial cable comprising an outer conductor (4) composed of outer conductor wires and a grounding conductor (5) composed grounding conductor wires, wherein the outer conductor wires are spirally wound in a direction that is opposite to that of the grounding conductor wires. Ijff discloses a multicore cable comprising a plurality of coaxial cables, wherein the outer conductor wires of each cable are exposed. Nohmi is modified by Ijff such that a plurality of Nohmi said cables are collected to form a multicore cable with the outer conductor wires being exposed. Therefore, the combination of Nohmi and Ijff discloses the claimed arrangement.
Applicant argues that Nohmi teaches away from use in a multicore cable structure, pointing to col. 1 lines 30-45 and col. 3 lines 12-37 of Nohmi. Examiner would disagree because Nohmi does not state that the disclosed coaxial cable is used explicitly as a single cable as argued by the applicant. Moreover, “Teaching away” requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Whether or not a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention presents a fundamentally different technical problem from Nohmi’s single cable. Examiner would disagree. 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.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to achieve opposite winding directions in the multicore context. Examiner would disagree. Claimed invention calls for the opposite winding directions applied only to the at least one coaxial cable which comprises grounding conductor wires, and Nohmi does teach that opposite winding directions in a coaxial cable would improve the breakage even when the cable is used in twisting and bending situations (col. 1).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Re-claim 4, applicant argues that the braided shield 5b of Huang is different in both structure and function from the grounding conductor of Ijff. Examiner would disagree. Huang discloses a coaxial cable comprising two, inner and outer, conductor layers (5a, 5b) surrounding an insulator. Ijff, likewise, discloses a coaxial cable comprising two, inner and outer, conductor layers (5, 6) surrounding an insulator. Huang teaches the outer diameter of each wire of the outer conductor layer is more than 1.0 and less than 1.5 times the outer diameter of each wire of the inner conductor layer, col. 6 lines 26-32. One skilled in the art would have motivated to apply the teaching of Huang in the cable of Ijff.
Re-claim 5, Ijff does not teach away from the grounding conductor wires being bundled together. “Teaching away” requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Whether or not a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Bundling the grounding conductor wires of Ijff together as taught by Asakura will not defeat the purpose of Ijff’s invention. Specifically, Asakura discloses that only a portion, terminal portion, of the grounding conductor where the grounding conductor wires are bundled together. Therefore, when Ijff is modified by Asakura, only a small portion of the grounding conductor, where the grounding conductor wires are bundled together, and the rest of the grounding conductor still has the grounding conductor wires spirally wound around the outer conductor wires.
Re-claim 6, applicant argues that Ijff does not teach or suggest the winding direction of the outer conductor wires. Examiner would disagree. Claim 6 is rejected over Nohmi in view of Ijff. A plurality of said coaxial cables of Nohmi is collected to form a multicore cable, taught by Ijff. Therefore, the winding directions of the outer conductor wires in all coaxial cables are the same.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights