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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiba et al. (4546210).
Akiba et al. (Fig. 1A or 6) discloses a multicore cable comprising a core including a plurality of insulated wires; and an outer sheath (4 or 15) covering an outer surface of the core, wherein the plurality of insulated wires includes a plurality of outer insulated wires located on an outer peripheral side of the core, and a plurality of inner insulated wires located on an inner side of the core, wherein the outer sheath includes a convex portion disposed to penetrate in between a pair of adjacent outer insulated wires among the plurality of outer insulated wires and extending along outer peripheries of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires, and wherein the convex portion makes no contact with the plurality of inner insulated wires (re-claims 1 and 15). Akiba et al. also discloses that the outer insulated wires are in direct contact with the outer sheath (re-claim 6); Re-claim 7, since the multicore cable of Akiba et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires and the convex portion are at least partially in contact with each other at a bent portion of the multicore cable in a state where the multicore cable is bent at the bent portion; the outer sheath (15) includes a thermoplastic resin (polyester) (re-claim 9); the core has a gap (see Fig. 1A or 6) between at least the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires among the plurality of outer insulated wires, and the convex portion is in contact with at least a portion of surfaces of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires and penetrates the gap between the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires along the outer peripheries of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires (re-claim 10); and a void (Fig. 1A or 6) is provided inside the core in a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (re-claim 11).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba et al. in view of Parke et al. (2006/0032660).
Akiba et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the height of the convex portion between 0.05 mm and 0.4 mm. Parke et al. discloses a multicore cable comprising an outer sheath (32, Fig. 8) which includes a convex portion (34), wherein the convex portion has a height (35) of about 0.5 mm ([0047], 20 mils = about 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm is about 0.5 mm). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the convex portion of Akiba et al. with a height of 0.4 mm as taught by Parke et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable, greater height further protecting the outer insulated wires.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2017/0110221) in view of Akiba et al.
Wu et al. discloses a multicore cable comprising a core including a plurality of insulated wires; and an outer sheath (20) covering an outer surface of the core, wherein the plurality of insulated wires includes a plurality of outer insulated wires (11, 12, 15) located on an outer peripheral side of the core, and a plurality of inner insulated wires (14, 16, 17) located on an inner side of the core (re-claim 1).
Wu et al. does not disclose the outer sheath including a convex portion disposed to penetrate in between a pair of adjacent outer insulated wires among the plurality of outer insulated wires and extending along outer peripheries of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires, and the convex portion making no contact with the plurality of inner insulated wires (re-claim 1).
Akiba et al. (Fig. 6) discloses a multicore cable comprising a core including outer insulated wires, inner insulated wires, and an outer sheath (15), wherein the outer sheath includes a convex portion disposed to penetrate in between a pair of adjacent outer insulated wires among the plurality of outer insulated wires and extending along outer peripheries of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires, and wherein the convex portion makes no contact with the plurality of inner insulated wires.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the outer sheath of Wu et al. to comprise a convex portion which is disposed to penetrate in between a pair of adjacent outer insulated wires among the plurality of outer insulated wires; extends along outer peripheries of the pair of adjacent outer insulated wires; and makes no contact with the plurality of inner insulated wires, as taught by Akiba et al. to keep the outer insulated wires in their positions with respect to the inner insulated wires.
Re-claim 3, Wu et al. discloses the insulated wires including a first insulated wire (12), and a second insulated wire (11) having an outer diameter larger than that of the first insulated wire, wherein the second insulated wire is disposed on the outer peripheral side of the core.
Re-claim 4, Wu et al. discloses the first insulated wire (12, 13, 15) and the second insulated wire (11) being disposed on the outer peripheral side of the core; and in a cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the core, a first region including the first insulated wire and a second region including the second insulated wire, which are alternately arranged along an outer periphery of the core (Fig. 2).
Re-claim 5, Wu et al. discloses the core including a twisted pair insulated wire (14) having two insulated wires twisted together.
Re-claim 8, Wu et al. discloses each insulated wire including a central conductor and an insulator covering an outer surface of the central conductor, but does not disclose the insulator including fluororesin. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use fluororesin as the insulator in the cable of Wu et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since fluororesin is well-known in the art for being used as insulator because of its dielectric properties.
Re-claim 13, Wu et al. discloses the outer insulated wires including a pair of insulated wires (11), but does not disclose the pair being a twisted pair. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the pair of insulated wires (11) of Wu et al. to be a twisted pair to meet the specific design of the cable since a twisted pair of insulated wires is known in the art for being used as differential wires.
Re-claim 14, Wu et al. discloses the outer insulated wires including predetermined outer insulated wires (11) that are arranged symmetrically in a cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the core, and the predetermined outer insulated wires (11) having a diameter greater than that of other outer insulated wires (12, 13, 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 12-15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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