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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/603,442, filed on March 13, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 13, 2024. These drawings are approved.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 1, the abstract recites the terms “comprises”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term “comprises” with the term –has--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-4, 12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonen et al (Pub Num 2015/0000954, herein referred to as Nonen) in view of Grant et al (Pub Num 2011/0315419, herein referred to as Grant). Nonen discloses a cable (Figs 1-7B) capable of suppressing the occurrence of crosstalk (Paragraph 12). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Nonen discloses a cable (40, Fig 2B) comprising a pair of conductors (left 41, right 41) extending longitudinally and spaced apart from each other (Fig 2A), an inner insulating layer (42) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the conductors (left 41, right 41) and fixing the conductors (left 41, right 41, Paragraph 38), a conductive shielding layer (43) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the inner insulating layer (42, Paragraph 40), wherein the conductive shielding layer (43) extends longitudinally (Fig 2A) and an outer insulating layer (44) circumferentially wrapped around an outer peripheral surface of the conductive shielding layer (43, Paragraph 43) and extending longitudinally (Paragraph 43). With respect to claim 2, Nonen discloses that the outer insulating layer (44) comprises a single layer of wrapping structure (Paragraph 43, Fig 2A-2B). With respect to claim 16, Nonen discloses that the inner insulating layer (42) is a single layer wrapping around the at least two conductors (left 41, right 41) along a longitudinal length of the at least two conductors (left 41, right 41, Figs 2A-2B, Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 19, Nonen discloses a cable assembly (10, Fig 1) comprising a pair of cables (40, 40), wherein the cable (40, Fig 2B) comprising a pair of conductors (left 41, right 41) extending longitudinally and spaced apart from each other (Fig 2A), an inner insulating layer (42) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the conductors (left 41, right 41) and fixing the conductors (left 41, right 41, Paragraph 38), a conductive shielding layer (43) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the inner insulating layer (42, Paragraph 40), wherein the conductive shielding layer (43) extends longitudinally (Fig 2A) and an outer insulating layer (44) circumferentially wrapped around an outer peripheral surface of the conductive shielding layer (43, Paragraph 43), a conductive shielding structure (13) wrapped around the cables (40, 40) and an outer sleeve (15) sleeved on an outer peripheral surface of the conductive shielding structure (13), wherein the cable assembly (10) further comprising a buffering layer (11) and/or a filler (12) provided between the cables (40, 40) and the conductive shielding structure (13). With respect to claim 20, Nonen discloses that the cable (10, Fig 1) further comprises at least one buffer layer (12) provided between the at least to cables (40, 40) and the conductive shielding structure (43, Fig 1).
While Nonen discloses an outer insulating layer (44) having located along the inner side a conductive shield (43), Nonen doesn’t necessarily disclose the full-longitudinally wrapping structure being formed in a tubular shape circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the whole conductive shielding layer and extending continuously and longitudinally along the entire length of the cable (claims 1 & 19), nor the conductive shielding layer located on an inner side of the layer of full-longitudinally wrapping structure in a radial direction by hot-melting or by an adhesive (claim 3), nor the adhesive layer being provided on an inner wall surface of the longitudinally wrapping structure (claim 4), nor the conductive shielding layer is adapted to be electrically connected to an external ground (claim 12), nor the inner insulation layer being extruded (claim 16).
Grant teaches a cable assembly (Figs 1-7) that reduces electromagnetic interference leakage both into and out from the cable assembly (Paragraph 6). With respect to claims 1 & 19, Grant teaches a cable (300, Fig 3) comprising a pair of conductors (left 114, right 114) extending longitudinally and spaced apart from each other (Fig 3), an inner insulating layer (116) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the conductors (left 41, right 41) and fixing the conductors (left 114, right 114, Paragraph 19), a conductive shielding layer (120) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the inner insulating layer (116, Paragraph 21), wherein the conductive shielding layer (120) extends longitudinally (Fig 2) and an outer insulating layer (126) circumferentially wrapped around an outer peripheral surface of the conductive shielding layer (120) and extending longitudinally (i.e. the jacket may be formed as a tube like 120, Paragraph 32), wherein the full-longitudinally wrapping structure (126) may be formed in a tubular shape (200) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the whole conductive shielding layer (120) and extending continuously and longitudinally along the entire length of the cable (300, Paragraph 32). With respect to claims 3-4, Grant teaches that the conductive shielding layer (126) is located on an inner side of the layer of full-longitudinally wrapping structure (126) in a radial direction by hot-melting or by an adhesive (Paragraph 32), wherein the adhesive layer is provided on an inner wall surface of the longitudinally wrapping structure (126, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 12, Grant teaches that the conductive shielding layer (120) is adapted to be electrically connected to an external ground (i.e. via grounding wire, 124, Paragraph 30). With respect to claim 16, Grant teaches that the inner insulating layer (116, Fig 3) is a single layer capable of being extruded layer wrapping around the at least two conductors (left 114, right 114) along a longitudinal length of the at least two conductors (left 114, right 114, see Fig 3, Paragraph 19).
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 cable of Nonen to comprise the outer insulating layer configuration as taught by Grant because Grant teaches that such a configuration provides a cable assembly (Figs 1-7) that reduces electromagnetic interference leakage both into and out from the cable assembly (Paragraph 6) 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.
Claim(s) 5-11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonen (Pub Num 2015/0000954) in view of Grant (Pub Num 2011/0315419), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Nonen), further in view of Cases et al (Pat Num 7,479,601, herein referred to as Cases). Modified Nonen discloses a cable (Figs 1-7B) capable of suppressing the occurrence of crosstalk (see Paragraph 12 of Nonen). Specifically, with respect to claim 11, modified Nonen discloses that an adhesive layer (not shown) may be provided on the inner wall surface of the outer insulating layer (126, see Paragraph 32 of Grant). With respect to claim 13 & 15, modified Nonen discloses that the cable (100, Fig 3) further comprises at least one grounding wire (124), which is arranged between the conductive shielding layer (120) and the inner insulating layer (116) and in electrical contact with the conductive shielding layer (120, see Grant Fig 3, Paragraph 28). With respect to claims 17-18, modified Nonen discloses that the inner insulating layer (116, Fig 3) is a single layer capable of being extruded layer wrapping around the at least two conductors (left 114, right 114) along a longitudinal length of the at least two conductors (left 114, right 114, see Fig 3, Paragraph 19 of Grant).
Modified Nonen doesn’t necessarily disclose the conductive shielding layer comprises a first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and a second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure, each of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure circumferentially surrounding a part of a circumference of the inner insulating layer and extending continuously and longitudinally along the entire length of the cable (claim 5), nor wherein each of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure circumferentially surrounds at least half of the circumference of the inner insulating layer, such that the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure, which are arranged to be diametrically opposed to each other, together circumferentially surround the entire circumference of the inner insulating layer (claim 6), nor wherein circumferential end sections of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure arranged to be diametrically opposed, at least partially overlap with each other in a radial direction of the inner insulating layer to form a closed loop wrapped circumferentially around the inner insulating layer (claim 7), nor the circumferential end sections of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure arranged to be diametrically opposed, partially overlap with each other at positions on two diametrically opposed sides of the inner insulating layer (claim 8), nor the portions of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure overlapping with each other comprise a flat portion or a curved portion (claim 9), nor wherein a position of the overlapping portion of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure is fixed relative to a central axis of the cable in a circumferential direction (claim 10), nor wherein each of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure is attached to the outer peripheral surface of the inner insulating layer located on an inner side of the corresponding semi-longitudinally wrapping structure in the radial direction (claim 11), nor the at least one grounding wire comprises a grounding wire, which is positioned between at least one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and the inner insulating layer and in electrical contact with the at least one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (claim 14), nor the grounding wire is attached to a middle position of the at least one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure in a circumferential direction on the inner wall surface of the at least one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (claim 15).
Cases teaches a cable (Fig 3) that ensures uniform current return at regions of the cable where there is strong current distribution (Col 3, lines 15-19). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Cases discloses a cable (300, Fig 3) comprising a pair of conductors (306, 310) extending longitudinally and spaced apart from each other (Col 3, lines 29-35), an inner insulating layer (308, 312) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the conductors (306, 310) and fixing the conductors (306, 310, Fig 3), a conductive shielding layer (322 & 324) circumferentially wrapped around an outside of the inner insulating layer (308, 312, respectively), wherein the at least one of the conductive shielding layer (322 & 324) includes a first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and a second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) circumferentially surrounding a part of a circumference of the inner insulating layer (308, 312, respectively) and extending continuously and longitudinally along the length of the cable (300, Col 3, lines 51-62, Fig 3). With respect to claim 6, Cases teaches that a first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and a second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) surrounds at least half of the circumference of the inner insulating layer (308, 312, respectively), such that a first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and a second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) diametrically opposed each other and together circumferentially surround an entirety of the circumference of the inner insulating layer (308, 312, respectively, i.e. Cases discloses that first shield 322 may extend from the first cable 302 to the second cable 304 and the second shield 324 may extend from the second cable 304 to the first cable 302 thereby surrounding completely first and second cables (302, 304, Cols 3-4, lines 55-67 & 1-6 respectively). With respect to claim 7, Cases teaches that circumferential end sections of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) are arranged to be diametrically opposed (Fig 3), and at least partially overlap in a circumferential direction of the inner insulating layer (308, 312) to form a closed loop (i.e. Cases discloses that first shield 322 may extend from the first cable 302 to the second cable 304 and the second shield 324 may extend from the second cable 304 to the first cable 302 thereby surrounding completely first and second cables (302, 304, Cols 3-4, lines 55-67 & 1-6 respectively). With respect to claim 8, Cases teaches that the circumferential end sections of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) are arranged to be diametrically opposed (Fig 3), and partially overlap on a pair of diametrically opposed sides of the inner insulating layer (308, 312, i.e. Cases discloses that first shield 322 may extend from the first cable 302 to the second cable 304 and the second shield 324 may extend from the second cable 304 to the first cable 302 thereby surrounding completely first and second cables (302, 304, Cols 3-4, lines 55-67 & 1-6 respectively). With respect to claims 9-11, Cases teaches that the portions of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) overlapping each other comprise a flat portion and curve portion (Fig 3) and are fixed and attached to inner surface of the inner insulation layer (308, 312, respectively, i.e. Cases discloses that first shield 322 may extend from the first cable 302 to the second cable 304 and the second shield 324 may extend from the second cable 304 to the first cable 302 thereby surrounding completely first and second cables (302, 304, Cols 3-4, lines 55-67 & 1-6 respectively). With respect to claims 14-15, Cases teaches that at least one grounding wire (330) is positioned between at least one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322, 324) of the first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322) and the second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (324) and the inner insulating layer (308, 312) and in electrical contact with the one semi-longitudinally wrapping structure (322, 324, Col 4, lines 7-12).
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 cable of modified Nonen to comprise the shield layer being formed into a first semi-longitudinally wrapping structure and a second semi-longitudinally wrapping structure configuration as taught by Case because Case teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Fig 3) that ensures uniform current return at regions of the cable where there is strong current distribution (Col 3, lines 15-19) and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
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 cables comprising different configurations of shields and jackets.
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
October 31, 2025
Prosecution Insights