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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 13, 2025. These drawings are not approved because the cross hatching to indicate the insulative and conductive materials is improper. Specifically, the outer jacket material is cross hatched as a metallic material, which is incorrect. The applicant should cross hatch the jacket as an insulative (all solid lines) or thermoplastic resin material (alternating thick and thin lines) as denoted by the specification. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks, Jr et al (Pat Num 5,008,489, herein referred to as Weeks) in view of Yoshomiya et al (JP Pat Num 2002-329425, herein referred to as Yoshomiya) and Gruhn (Pat Num 4,746,767). Weeks discloses a communication cable (Figs 1-6) comprising a unique shielding tape that shields the cable from electrical and electromagnetic interference as well as from moisture (Col 3, lines 5-9). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Weeks discloses a communication cable (10, Figs 1-4) comprising a core wire (12, 14) having a conductor (12) and an insulating layer (14) covering an outer circumference of the conductor (12, Fig 1) and a film-like shield (16) that longitudinally surrounds an outer circumference of the core wire (12, 14), wherein the film-like shield (16) includes a metal base layer (16a) constituted by a metal layer (Col 3, lines 25-27), and a linear or band-shaped stripe member (22) that is made of a material containing a polyolefin (i.e. ethylene acrylic acid, EEA), wherein a plurality of the stripe members (22) extend in an axial direction (Fig 1) of the core wire (12, 14) and are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the core wire (12, 14, Fig 2). With respect to claim 4, Weeks discloses that the film like shield (16) further includes a metal coating layer (18) as a metal layer that differs from the metal base layer (16a) and the stripe members (22) are held between metal base layer (16a) and the metal coating layer (18, Fig 4). With respect to claim 5, Weeks discloses the cable (10), wherein no other layer is provided on a surface of the film-like shield (16) where the stripe members (22) are disposed on a surface of the metal base layer (16a, Col 3, lines 35-38). With respect to claim 6, Weeks discloses that the communication cable (10) is configured as a coaxial cable (Col 4, lines 55-58) and further comprises a braided shield (18) that surrounds an outer side of the film like shield (16) and is constituted by a braided body of bare wires (Col 3, lines 15-20). With respect to claim 7, Weeks discloses that the film like shield (16) further includes a sheet like polymer base member (16b) containing an organic polymer (Col 3, lines 30-31), wherein the metal base layer (16a) is formed on a surface of the polymer base member (16a), and the stripe members (22) are disposed on a surface of the metal base layer (16a) that is opposite to the polymer base member (16b, Col 3, lines 20-34). With respect to claim 8, Weeks discloses a communication cable (10) that includes a braided shield (18) that is constituted by a braided body of bare metal wires (Col 3, lines 15-20), and surrounds the outer circumference of the core wire (12, 14), and a surface of the film-like shield (16) that is opposite to a surface on which the polymer base member (16b) is disposed is in contact with the braided shield (18, via layer 16c, Col 3, lines 30-34). With respect to claim 9, Weeks discloses that the cable (10) has an arrangement interval between stripe members (22) in the film-like shield (16) is 1 mm or less (Col 3, lines 54-59, 1/32=0.039in=0.79375mm < 1mm). With respect to claim 11, Weeks discloses that each of the stripe members (22) has a dimension in the width direction (W) that is smaller than a dimension in the longitudinally direction (i.e. length of the stripe members is longer than the width of the stripe members, Fig 1).
Weeks doesn’t necessarily disclose the plurality of stripe members each extending in straight line along an axial direction (claim 1), nor a coverage, defined as a ratio of an area of the region where the stripe members are provided to an area of an entire surface of the metal base layer being 40% or more (claim 12).
Yoshomiya teaches a communication cable (Figs 1-2B) that has a shielding layer that is easy to be mounted, superior in protection against EMI and flame retardancy (Paragraph 1), while exhibiting superior flexibility, electrical insulation, heat resistance, mechanical strength, chemical resistance, and solvent resistance (Paragraph 23). Yoshomiya teaches a communication cable (100, Figs 1-2B) comprising a core wire (5, 7) having a conductor (5) and an insulating layer (7) covering an outer circumference of the conductor (5, Figs 2A & 2B) and a film-like shield (10) that longitudinally surrounds an outer circumference of the core wire (5, 7), wherein the film-like shield (10) includes a metal base layer (2) constituted by a metal layer (Paragraph 24), and a linear or band-shaped stripe member (1) that is made of a material containing a polyolefin, Paragraph 23), wherein a plurality of the stripe members (4), wherein each extend in a straight line long an axial direction (Figs 1 & 2) of the core wire (5, 7) and are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the core wire (5, 7, i.e. shield is wrapped longitudinally, Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 12, Yoshomiya teaches that a coverage, defined as a ratio of an area of the region where the stripe members (4) are provided to an area of an entire surface of the metal base layer being 40% or more (Paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the communication cable of Weeks to comprise the plurality of stripe members each extending in straight line along an axial direction configuration as taught by Yoshomiya because Yoshomiya teaches that such a configuration provides a communication cable (Figs 1-2B) that has a shielding layer that is easy to be mounted, superior in protection against EMI and flame retardancy (Paragraph 1), while exhibiting superior flexibility, electrical insulation, heat resistance, mechanical strength, chemical resistance, and solvent resistance (Paragraph 23) and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Weeks also doesn’t necessarily disclose a constituent material of the stripe members does not exhibit adhesiveness to the metal base layer, and the stripe members are adhered to a surface of the metal base layer using an adhesive or a bonding agent that is different from the constituent material of the stripe members (claim 1), nor the stripe members are made of a material containing a substance imparted with electrical conductivity by mixing a conductive additive into the organic polymer (claim 2), nor the stripe members being made of a material containing polyethylene terephthalate (claim 3).
Gruhn teaches a communication cable (Figs 1-9) having an improved shielding structure (Col 1, lines 5-10) that minimizes the leakage of radiation (Col 2, lines 26-30) while also providing an effective seal against moisture (Col 6, lines 58-61). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Gruhn teaches comprising a core wire (12, 14) having a conductor (12) and an insulating layer (14) covering an outer circumference of the conductor (12, Fig 7) and a film-like shield (16) that longitudinally surrounds an outer circumference of the core wire (12, 14), wherein the film-like shield (16) includes a metal base layer (22) constituted by a metal layer (Col 4, lines 60-61), and a shaped member (28) that is made of a material containing a polyolefin (i.e. ethylene acrylic acid, EEA, Col 5, lines 7-8), wherein a plurality of the stripe members (28) extend in an axial direction (Fig 1) of the core wire (12, 14) and are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the core wire (12, 14, Fig 6), wherein the plurality of stripe members (28) comprises a constituent material (conductive fibers or particles, Col 5, lines 1-4), wherein the material (i.e. conductive fibers or particles) of the stripe members (28) does not exhibit adhesiveness to the metal base layer (22), and the stripe members (28) are adhered to a surface of the metal base layer (22) using an adhesive (i.e. EEA) that is different from the constituent material (i.e. conductive fibers or particles) of the stripe members (28). With respect to claim 2, Gruhn teaches that the stripe members (28) may be made of a material containing a substance imparted with electrical conductivity by mixing a conductive additive (conductive fibers or particles) into the organic polymer (i.e. EEA, Col 5, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the communication cable of Weeks to comprise the stripe member to a constituent material that does not exhibit adhesiveness to the metal base layer and contains a substance that imparts electrical conductivity by mixing a conductive additive into the organic polymer configuration as taught by Gruhn because Gruhn teaches that such a configuration provides a communication cable (Figs 1-9) having an improved shielding structure (Col 1, lines 5-10) that minimizes the leakage of radiation (Col 2, lines 26-30) while also providing an effective seal against moisture (Col 6, lines 58-61).
With respect to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the stripe members of Gruhn to be made of a material containing polyethylene terephthalate (i.e. PET), since PET is a well-known polyester commonly utilized in the cable art as a laminate to metallic layer because of its durability and toughness, and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various communication having shielding layers with stripe members.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
November 7, 2025