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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1 through 15, in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 through 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 5, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In Claim 1, “the coax” (line 12) should be changed to –the coaxial--.
In Claim 3, “(0.460 inches)” (line 2) and “(0.600 inches + 0.020 inches)” (lines 2-3), should each be removed.
In Claim 4, “the event” (line 4) should be changed to –an event--.
In Claim 15, “(0.203 inches)” (line 2) should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 provides 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the specific outer diameter dimensions for each of the foam dielectric layer and the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art does not disclose wherein the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer a thickness of greater than 33% of a combined thickness of all layers between the center conductor and the outer conductor,
whereby in an event that the foam dielectric layer burns away and no longer supports the center conductor in a center of the fire resistant coaxial cable, the ceramifiable silicone dielectric layer keeps the center conductor within 67% of the center.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art does not each that the outer conductor is surrounded by a ceramifiable silicone jacket layer, in combination with the other layers recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2011-228032, discloses a coaxial cable that includes a center conductor (11, Fig. 1) surrounded by a first dielectric layer (12), which is surrounded by a second dielectric layer (14).
Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Cao et al, entitled "Thermally induced currents in coaxial signal cables", discloses a coaxial cable surrounded by various dielectric layers (e.g. Fig. 2, see entire document).
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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 2896