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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2024 and 14 August 2024 were filed prior to the mailing date of this office correspondence. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a tape” must be shown in Fig. 2 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Though, a mylar tape PB has been presented in Fig. 10, it appears that the mylar tape PB has been feeding after the tape forming mechanism 100 in Fig. 10 (see annotated Fig. 10 below). Also, see the tape forming direction L, eye mold structure 130 in Fig. 2 and the eye mold structure 130 in Fig. 10. Therefore, a tape must be shown in Fig. 2. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
361
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (tape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tape forming mechanism)]
PNG
media_image2.png
370
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2: “covering device, further comprising” should read:
-- covering device, the covering device further comprising --
In claims 2-5, “The mechanism according to” should read: -- The tape forming mechanism according to --
In claim 5, line 4: “said entrance,” should read: -- said entrance part, --
In claim 5 line 5: “said exit are” should read: -- said exit part are --
In claim 6, line 2: “a cable” should read -- the twin-core cable --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “A tape forming mechanism” renders claim indefinite because it is unclear how the claimed tape is formed and is confusing with a tape wrapping mechanism. What does “tape forming” mean? Would a core wrapping tape for a cable be physically formed by the recited “tape forming mechanism”. Further, specification/ drawings fail to show a tape (see the drawing objections). Therefore, the scope is unclear. As best understood, it appears that the limitation “a tape forming mechanism” actually intends that “a tape feeding or shaping mechanism”, or the like.
Claim 1 recites multiple structures such as “covering device”, “forming part”, “eye mold structure”, “eye mold hole” without reciting any functional and/or structural relationship with the claimed “tape forming mechanism”. What does “a covering device” mean. What does it cover? Also, see the “forming part” recited as “forming structure comprises a forming part recessed on the surface of said fixed seat”. It is unclear the function of the recited “covering device” or “forming part”, or the “eye mold structure” with the claimed tape forming mechanism.
In claim 1, the limitation “a forming eye mold hole area having a shape configuration” is confusing because it is unclear what does “a shape configuration” mean. Would it be “a shaping configuration” or the like.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the hole diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “a seat body”, and “a bearing body”, without reciting any functional and/or structural relationship with the claimed “tape forming mechanism”. Further, claim 4 recites “entrance part is provided with an entrance, said exit part with an exit” , which is confusing. What does “an entrance”, “ an exit” mean?
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a tape forming mechanism” in line 4, in which the antecedent basis has already established in claim 1.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-6 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 105538646) in view of Gundel (US 20160351298).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (forming part)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (forming structure)][AltContent: textbox (eye mold structure)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (eye mold hole)][AltContent: textbox (fixed seat)]
PNG
media_image3.png
544
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3, Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches, a tape forming mechanism of a twin-core cable manufacturing machine (data cable work bench, Figs. 1 to 6), comprising: a covering device (see work bench in Fig. 1), further comprising a fixed seat (5, see annotated Fig. 3), a forming structure (16 and 17), and two wire via sets (central cable through pipe 18), wherein said forming structure comprises a forming part (see annotated Fig. 3) recessed on the surface of said fixed seat, said wire via sets are respectively provided on said fixed seat, and each of said wire via sets is respectively positioned on the two sides of said forming structure (see the central cable through pipes 18); and an eye mold structure (cladding die mold 6), provided behind said covering device in a tape forming direction, and further comprising a forming eye mold hole area (see Fig. 3) having a shape configuration.
Yang does not teach, two drain-wires. However, Gundel teaches, a cable forming tool in Fig. 10C, in which, two drain-wires (two drain wires 11412, Fig. 30a, para. [0259]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Gundel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tape forming mechanism of Yang and replace the cable through the pipes 18 in Fig. 3 with drain-wires as Gundel teaches in Fig. 30a so that it enables reducing the insertion loss as Gundel disclosed in para. [0016]. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised in providing the two drain-wires. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Gundel teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Yang further teaches, the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein said forming structure comprises a pressing plate part (rear roll structure 17, see annotated Fig. 3) provided on said forming part, and shielding or partly shielding said forming part.
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Gundel teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Yang further teaches, the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein said forming part comprises an entrance end and an exit end (see annotated Fig. 3 below) opposite to each other, and the hole diameter of said entrance end is larger than the one of said exit end.
[AltContent: textbox (seat body)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (exit end)][AltContent: textbox (bearing body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (entrance end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
544
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3, Yang.
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Gundel teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Yang further teaches, the mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising: a seat body (see annotated Fig. 3 below), comprising a bearing body (frame 12), an entrance part (see Fig. 3), and an exit part (Fig. 3), wherein said entrance part and said exit part are respectively provided on said bearing body and separated apart by a distance (see Figs. 1 and 3), said fixed seat is fixed on said bearing body, said fixed seat is positioned between said entrance part and said exit part, said entrance part is provided with an entrance (see Fig. 3), said exit part with an exit, and said eye mold structure is fixed on and protruded out from said exit of said exit part (see the cladding die mold 6, Fig. 3).
[AltContent: textbox (exit part)][AltContent: textbox (entrance part)][AltContent: textbox (bearing body)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (seat body)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (exit end)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
544
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3, Yang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are 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 and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing a twin-core cable manufacturing machine, wherein said seat body further comprises a guide seat positioned between said entrance part and said exit part, and adjacent to said entrance part, said fixed seat is adjacent to said guide seat, said guide seat is provided with a guide port, and said entrance, said guide port, and said eye mold structure in said exit are located on the same axial position along said tape forming direction.
Claim 6 would be allowable for disclosing a twin-core cable manufacturing machine, comprising: a first heating device, provided downstream of said first tape wrapping device to heat said cable; and a second heating device, provided downstream of said second tape wrapping device to heat said cable.
Though, prior art of record Yang teaches, a twin-core cable manufacturing machine, including a first tape wrapping device, configured to rotate a tape to wrap over a cable in a first rotating direction; a tape forming mechanism, connected to said first tape wrapping device; and a second tape wrapping device, and configured to rotate a tape to wrap over said cable in a second rotating direction, Yang fails to teach, a guide seat positioned between said entrance part and said exit part, and adjacent to said entrance part, said fixed seat is adjacent to said guide seat, said guide seat is provided with a guide port, and said entrance, said guide port, and said eye mold structure in said exit are located on the same axial position along said tape forming direction; or a first heating device, provided downstream of said first tape wrapping device to heat said cable; and a second heating device, provided downstream of said second tape wrapping device to heat said cable.
Prior art of record Gundel does not teach, a guide seat positioned between said entrance part and said exit part, and adjacent to said entrance part, said fixed seat is adjacent to said guide seat, said guide seat is provided with a guide port, and said entrance, said guide port, and said eye mold structure in said exit are located on the same axial position along said tape forming direction; or a first heating device, provided downstream of said first tape wrapping device to heat said cable; and a second heating device, provided downstream of said second tape wrapping device to heat said cable.
Therefore, claims 5-6 would be allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Prior art Zheng (US 10014096) teaches, a tape forming mechanism of a twin-core cable manufacturing machine, including a covering device, a fixed seat, a forming structure, and two wire via sets, a forming part recessed on the surface of said fixed seat, and each of said wire via sets is respectively positioned on the two sides of said forming structure; and an eye mold structure, further comprising a forming eye mold hole area having a shape configuration.
Prior art Zhou (WO 2015184683) teaches, a tape forming mechanism of a twin-core cable manufacturing machine, including a covering device, a fixed seat, a forming structure, and two wire via sets, a forming part recessed on the surface of said fixed seat, and each of said wire via sets is respectively positioned on the two sides of said forming structure; and an eye mold structure, having a forming eye mold hole area having a shape configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 EST.
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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights