DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicant’s submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on June 10, 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 through 20, which were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), have now been cancelled as part of the applicant’s submission.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A, Claims 5 and 6; and
Species B, Claims 21 through 25.
The species are independent or distinct because:
Species A is directed to a polymer foam that entraps no non-nitrogen gas products or is a specific composition (e.g. polypropylene, etc.).
Species B is directed to a polymer foam that includes a 90% or higher purity nitrogen into a polymer.
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Currently, Claims 1 through 4 and 7 through 15 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: (i) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and (ii) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Newly submitted Claims 21 through 25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the previous reasons stated.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (Species A), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 21 through 25 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
The claim objections in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections below are hereby repeated merely for the applicants convenience.
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2014/0069681 to LeBlanc et al (hereinafter “LeBlanc”) in view of the following teachings:
U.S. Publication 2013/0016022 to Heiks et al (hereinafter “Heiks”);
U.S. Publication 2015/0349473 to Montena (hereinafter “Montena”); and
U.S. Publication 2018/0174710 to Rogers (hereinafter “Rogers”).
Claim 1: LeBlanc discloses a method of installing a fire resistant coaxial cable comprising:
providing a coaxial cable (e.g. 105, ¶ [0028]) having a center conductor;
pulling or pushing the coaxial cable through a conduit (e.g. 110, ¶ [0029]); and
connecting the coaxial cable to an antenna (e.g. 380) of a distributed antenna system (e.g. Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0055] to [0058]).
LeBlanc does not mention any specific details of the coaxial cable. However, Heiks, Montena and Rogers, are all analogous to LeBlanc, where each disclose specific details of a coaxial cable to achieve the same purpose of transmitting signals.
Heiks discloses a coaxial cable (e.g. Fig. 4) having a center conductor (410, 415) surrounded by a first dielectric layer of a polymer material (400), which is surrounded by a second dielectric layer (e.g. 460) of a polymer material, where the second dielectric layer has a thickness (e.g. 100 microns, ¶ [0035]) of at least 50% of a thickness of the first dielectric layer (e.g.100 microns, ¶ [0034]), and the second dielectric layer is surrounded by an outer conductor (e.g. 445, 470).
Regarding Claim 2, Heiks further teaches that the second dielectric layer has a thickness of about 55% to 60% of a thickness of the first dielectric layer, based on the range of dimensions.
Regarding Claim 6, Heiks further discloses that the first dielectric layer can be made from polypropylene (e.g. ¶ [0029]).
Regarding Claim 7, Heiks further discloses that the second dielectric layer is in direct contact with the first dielectric layer (e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Heiks further discloses that the center conductor comprises multiple strands of wire (e.g. 410, 415, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the coaxial cable of Heiks for the coaxial cable of LeBlanc, to provide an art-recognized equivalent coaxial cable having the very same purpose of transmitting signals.
The modified method of LeBlanc does not state that the first dielectric layer is made from a polymer foam and that the second dielectric layer is made of ceramifiable silicone rubber. However, such materials for insulating coaxial cables are disclosed by Montena and Rogers.
Montena discloses a coaxial cable (e.g. 4, Fig. 4) that includes a center conductor (e.g. 44) surrounded by a foam dielectric layer of polymer foam (e.g. 46, ¶ [0046]), which is surrounded by a second dielectric layer (e.g. 52) of rubber (e.g. ¶ [0051]).
Rogers discloses a coaxial cable (e.g. 100, Fig. 1) that includes a center conductor (e.g. 116), surrounded by a first dielectric layer (e.g. 114), which is surrounded by a second dielectric layer (e.g. 104, Fig. 1) of ceramifiable silicone rubber (e.g. ¶ [0092]) comprising inorganic flux particles, refractory particles in a polysiloxane matrix, and configured to convert from a resilient elastomer to a porous ceramic when heated above 425⁰C [which is inclusive of the range of above 1010⁰C](e.g. ¶ [0028]). The benefit of the material composition by Rogers allows the coaxial cable to become much more fire resistant (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coaxial cable of LeBlanc and Heiks by using the dielectric materials for the first and second dielectric layers, as taught by Montena and Rogers, respectively, to provide equivalent insulating properties for the center conductor and to provide the advantage of a more fire resistant coaxial cable.
Regarding Claim 5, neither LeBlanc nor Montena disclose any nitrogen in making the coaxial cable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the polymer foam of the modified LeBlanc method entraps no non-nitrogen gas products.
Regarding Claim 8, Rogers further discloses that the coaxial cable can have a plastic film between the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer and the outer conductor (e.g. ¶ [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of LeBlanc by adding the plastic film, as taught by Rogers, to provide the coaxial cable with additional insulating protection.
Claims 9 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc in view of Heiks, Montena and Rogers, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2009/0020310 to Witthoft et al (hereinafter “Witthoft”).
LeBlanc, as modified by Heiks, Montena and Rogers, discloses the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1. The modified LeBlanc method does not teach that the outer conductor comprises a corrugated metal, or a metal braid.
Witthoft discloses a coaxial cable (e.g. Fig. 2) in which an outer conductor (e.g. 30) comprises a metal foil and a metal braid (corrugated metal) surrounding and in electrical contact with the metal foil (e.g. ¶ [0023]).
Regarding Claim 11, Witthoft further teaches that a plastic sheath can surround the metal braid of the outer conductor (e.g. ¶ [0023]).
Witthoft teaches that the benefits of the metal foil, metal braid (corrugated metal), and plastic sheath of the coaxial cable provide additional support for the center conductor (e.g. ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer conductor within LeBlanc’s method by adding the metal foil, metal braid (corrugated metal), and plastic sheath, as taught by Witthoft, to provide additional support for the center conductor within the structure of the coaxial cable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc in view of Heiks, Montena and Rogers, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2005/0056453 to Gialenious et al (hereinafter “Witthoft”).
LeBlanc, as modified by Heiks, Montena and Rogers, discloses the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1. The modified LeBlanc method does not mention any dimension for the diameter of the center conductor.
Gialenious teaches that a coaxial cable (e.g. 10, Fig. 1) can have a center conductor (e.g. 12) with a diameter of 0.203 in (5.16 mm)(e.g. ¶ [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of LeBlanc by using the diameter size of the center conductor of Gialenious, to provide an art-recognized equivalent coaxial cable having the same purpose of transmitting signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed as part of the submission have been fully considered but have not been deemed to be found persuasive.
The applicant urges that that prior art does not teach “wherein the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer has a thickness of at least 50% of a thickness of the foam dielectric layer” (lines 5-6 of Claim 1).
The examiner disagrees for at least the following reasons. The interpretation of this wherein clause was taken such that the recited range was very broad, so much so, that a thickness of the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer can have the same exact thickness of the foam dielectric layer, and meet the limitations of this wherein clause. This was the interpretation taken from the teachings in Heiks.
As stated in the above rejection, LeBlanc discloses a method installing a fire resistant coaxial cable with a conduit and connection to an antenna. The details of the coaxial cable are relied upon in Heiks, Montena and Rogers. The teachings from Heiks are what meets these thickness dimensions. It appears that applicant has not considered the Heiks reference as a whole but has focused only on certain parts of the reference. To clarify, Figure 4 of Heiks discloses a coaxial cable having a center conductor (e.g. 410, 415) surrounded by a first dielectric layer (e.g. 400), which is surrounded by a second dielectric layer (e.g. 460). The first and second dielectric layers correspond to the claimed “foam dielectric layer” and “ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer”, respectively.
In terms of the first dielectric layer, ¶ [0034] of Heiks states, in part:
Capillaries can have different inner and outer diameters and dimensions, depending on the desired frequency range…..
As a still further example, inner diameters or dimensions can be from about 75 to about 200 µm (microns).
Then ¶ [0009] of Heiks states, in part:
FIG. 4 shows a capillary comprising a dielectric material, 400, wherein the capillary is hollow approximately at the center, 405.
Certainly, one of ordinary skill in the art can select a thickness (e.g. inner dimension) of the first dielectric layer to be 100 µm, which falls within the range of dimensions (e.g. 75 µm to about 200 µm) taught above by Heiks.
In terms of the second dielectric layer, ¶ [0035] of Heiks states, in part:
The outside polymer coating may have a thickness of from 10-100 µm (microns).
Then ¶ [0009] of Heiks further states, in part:
Further, the conductor coated capillary is coated with a dielectric polymer coating, 460, which, in turn, is optionally, coated with a conductor, 445……. .
Certainly, one of ordinary skill in the art would equate the outside polymer coating in ¶ [0035] to be the dielectric (outer) polymer coating 460 in ¶ [0009], which means the thickness of the second dielectric layer can be selected as 100 µm as well. Hence, the thickness of the first dielectric layer is equal to the thickness of the second dielectric layer and the limitations of “wherein the ceramifiable silicone [second] dielectric layer has a thickness of at least 50% of a thickness of the foam [first] dielectric layer”.
It has been well settled in the courts that equivalents can be substituted when they are known to have the same purpose. MPEP § 2144.06(II). In this case, the coaxial cable of Heiks can be substituted for the coaxial cable of LeBlanc, for the same purpose of transmitting signals, and for the art-recognized equivalence of coaxial cables.
Granted neither Heiks nor LeBlanc mentions that the first dielectric layer is a polymer foam and that the second dielectric layer is a ceramifiable silicone rubber. These teachings were relied upon in Montena and Rogers, respectively. Montena was relied upon to teach that the material composition of a dielectric layer (e.g. first dielectric layer) (e.g. 46, Fig. 4) that specifically surrounds a center conductor (e.g. 44) can be a polymer foam, for the benefits noted in the above rejection. Whether or not Montena has a second dielectric layer is insignificant as this structure is taught by Heiks and was not relied upon in Montena.
In regard to Rogers, Rogers was relied upon to teach that the material composition of a (second) dielectric layer (e.g. 104, Fig. 1), that surrounds a first dielectric layer (e.g. 114), which surrounds a center conductor (e.g. 116), can be made of a ceramifiable silicone rubber, for the benefits noted in the above rejection. Whether or not Rogers teaches a polymer foam is insignificant as this is taught by Montena and was not relied upon in Rogers.
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference (e.g. Montena and Rogers) may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference (e.g. LeBlanc or Heiks); nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has also been well settled in the courts that equivalents can be combined when they are known to have the same purpose. MPEP § 2144.06(I). In this case, LeBlanc, Heiks, Montena and Rogers can be combined equivalents (e.g. coaxial cable) known for having the same purpose (e.g. transmitting signals).
In response to 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).
With respect to the prior art references not teaching that the coaxial cable is “fire resistant”, the examiner urges that the combined references do teach a “first resistant” coaxial cable to the extent that the prior art teaches the steps and materials as noted in the above rejection. However, it does appear that the applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in Claim 1 of a “first resistant coaxial cable” (line 1). When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “fire resistant” is not limiting because the body of the claim (lines 3-11 of Claim 1) describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 5, it is noted that the recitation of “no non-nitrogen gas products” (lines 1-2) are very broad negative limitations. The fact that neither LeBlanc, nor Montena, mention any “gas product” as part of the polymer foam material, or as part of their dielectric layer, means that this would cover “no gas products”, nitrogen or non-nitrogen.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that a ceramic is compressible and flexible, or that coaxial cables operate engulfed in fires) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In summary, the rejections are maintained in which a prima facie case of obviousness has been established for the foregoing reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The examiner’s remarks from the previous office action regarding each of Claims 3, 4 and 12 are hereby repeated and fully incorporated by reference herein.
Accordingly, Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3729
1 Non-Final action, mailed on March 13, 2026.
