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. 18/636,727, filed on April 16, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-9 lack the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductor and insulative materials is improper. 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.
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 ”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the terms “A low noise cable core and a manufacturing method thereof and a low noise cable using the same……. with the terms –A low noise cable core--, 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) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schombourg (Pat Num 4,767,894) in view of Buck et al (Pub Num 2015/0371738, herein referred to as Buck). Schombourg discloses low noise cable core (Figs 1-2) having improved mechanical properties such as better thermal aging properties, higher heat deformation properties, higher abrasion resistance, less temperature sensitivity in relation to strippability, better resistance to solvents, better impact resistance, and less degradation during curing (Col 5, lines 35-45). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Schombourg discloses a low noise cable core (Fig 2) comprising an insulated conductor (1-3) comprising a conductive core (1) and an insulation layer (3) encapsulating the conductive core (1), a first type conductive layer (4) encapsulating the insulated conductor (1-3), and a second type conductive layer (5) encapsulating the first type conductive layer (4), wherein the first type conductive layer (4) and the second type conductive layer (5) are respectively formed by way of a first forming method (i.e. extruding) and a second forming method (i.e. extruding, Col 6, lines 1-20). With respect to claim 2, Schombourg discloses that the first type conductive layer (4) may be extruded layer formed by extrusion (Col 6, lines 12-13), and the second type conductive layer (5) may be a coating layer formed by extrusion (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 3, Schombourg discloses that the first type conductive layer (4) may be a layer of conductive PE (i.e. polyethylene, Col 3, lines 50-56), which may be extruded (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 5, Schombourg discloses that the first type conductive layer (4) may be extruded layer formed by extrusion (Col 6, lines 12-13), and the second type conductive layer (5) may be a coating layer formed by extrusion (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 7, Schombourg discloses that the second type conductive layer (5) may be a layer of conductive PE (i.e. polyethylene, Col 3, lines 1-18), which may be extruded (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 8, Schombourg discloses that the cable core (Fig 2) may further comprise a metal shielding layer encapsulating the second type conductive layer (i.e. neutral conductor and/or armour layers, Col 5, lines 31-35). With respect to claim 9, Schombourg discloses a manufacturing method of a low noise cable core (Fig 2) comprising forming an insulated conductor (1-3) comprising a conductive core (1) and an insulation layer (3) encapsulating the conductive core (1), a first type conductive layer (4) encapsulating the insulated conductor (1-3), and a second type conductive layer (5) encapsulating the first type conductive layer (4), wherein the first type conductive layer (4) and the second type conductive layer (5) are respectively formed by way of a first forming method (i.e. extruding) and a second forming method (i.e. extruding, Col 6, lines 1-20). With respect to claim 10, Schombourg discloses that the first forming method comprises an extrusion process and the second forming method comprises an extrusion process (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 12, Schombourg discloses that the first forming method comprises an extrusion process and the second forming method comprises an extrusion process (Col 6, lines 12-13). With respect to claim 14, Schombourg discloses a low noise cable core (Fig 2) comprising an insulated conductor (1-3) comprising a conductive core (1) and an insulation layer (3) encapsulating the conductive core (1), a first type conductive layer (4) encapsulating the insulated conductor (1-3), and a second type conductive layer (5) encapsulating the first type conductive layer (4), wherein the first type conductive layer (4) and the second type conductive layer (5) are respectively formed by way of a first forming method (i.e. extruding) and a second forming method (i.e. extruding, Col 6, lines 1-20) and an outer sheath (i.e. weather protection coatings) encapsulating the cable core (Col 5, lines 31-35).
Schombourg doesn’t necessarily disclose the second forming method different from the first forming method (claims 1 & 9), nor the second forming method comprises a solution-coating process (claims 2 & 10), nor the first forming method comprises a solution-coating process (claims 5 & 12), nor the cable comprising at least three strands of cable cores, wherein two or more of the adjacent cable cores are in contact with one another, and the second forming method different from the first forming method and an outer sheath encapsulating said at least three strands of cable cores (claim 14).
Buck teaches a low noise cable core (Figs 1-3E) comprising a conductive layer that generally decreases the mutual capacitance and inductance between adjacent wires and lessens the effects of electromagnetic interference on signals propagated over the wires, while also making the overall cable smaller thereby saving in cost (Paragraph 19). Specifically, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, and 12, Buck teaches a low noise cable core (16, Fig 2A) comprising an insulated conductor (210) comprising a conductive core (220) and an insulation layer (225) encapsulating the conductive core (220, Paragraph 24), wherein a conductive layer (230) encapsulating the insulating conductor (210, 220, Paragraph 26), wherein the conductive layer (230) is formed by the method of a solution coating process, which is different method than extrusion (Paragraph 29). With respect to claim 14, Buck a low noise cable (16, Fig 2A) comprising at least three strands of cable cores (multiple 210s), wherein two or more of the adjacent cable cores (multiple 210s) are in contact with one another (Paragraph 24), and each of the cable cores comprises an insulated conductor (210) comprising a conductive core (220) and an insulation layer (225) encapsulating the conductive core (220, Paragraph 24), wherein a conductive layer (230) encapsulating the insulating conductor (210, 220, Paragraph 26), wherein the conductive layer (230) is formed by the method of a solution coating process, which is different method than extrusion (Paragraph 29) and an outer sheath (200) encapsulating said at least three strands of cable cores (multiple 210s).
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 low noise cable core of Schombourg to comprise either the first or second type conductive layer being made by a solution-coating method as taught by Buck because Buck teaches that such a method of forming such a conductive layer provides a low noise cable core (Figs 1-3E) comprising a conductive layer that generally decreases the mutual capacitance and inductance between adjacent wires and lessens the effects of electromagnetic interference on signals propagated over the wires, while also making the overall cable smaller thereby saving in cost (Paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made the cable comprising at least three strands of cable cores, wherein two or more of the adjacent cable cores are in contact with one another, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schombourg (Pat Num 4,767,894) in view of Buck (Pub Num 2015/0371738), as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 above (herein referred to as modified Schombourg), further in view of Yanhui et al (CN Pat Num 110819220A, herein referred to as Yanhui). Modified Schombourg discloses low noise cable core (Figs 1-2) having improved mechanical properties such as better thermal aging properties, higher heat deformation properties, higher abrasion resistance, less temperature sensitivity in relation to strippability, better resistance to solvents, better impact resistance, and less degradation during curing (see Schombourg, Col 5, lines 35-45).
However, modified Schombourg doesn’t necessarily disclose the coating solution used in the solution-coating process for forming the second type conductive layer comprises: (a) polyester resin, (b) ethyl acetate, N,N-dimethylformamide, cyclohexanone, or Ethylene glycol monoethyl acetate, (c) graphite or graphene, and (d) Chemical additives; wherein a volume percentage of (c) in the coating solution is no less than 3% and a volume percentage of (b) in the coating solution is no less than 20% (claims 4, 5, 11, & 13).
Yanhui teaches a preparation method of a conductive composition that may be formed into conductive layers utilized as a shielding materials for reducing the harmful effects of electromagnetic wave (i.e. EMI, Paragraphs 2-4), wherein the conductive layer is of easy processing, convenient construction, and low cost (Paragraph 4), while also having excellent conductivity thereby reducing skin effect, resulting in good shielding performance (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claims 4, 5, 11, and 13, Yanhui teaches a conductive composition comprising a coating solution used in the solution-coating process for forming a conductive layer comprises: 30-50 parts of (a) polyester resin (Paragraph 12), 20-40 parts of a solvent (Paragraph 15), which may be (b) ethyl acetate or cyclohexanone (Paragraph 34), 0.1-2 parts of (c) graphene (Paragraph 13), and 0.5-1 % of (d) Chemical additives (Paragraph 35), wherein a volume percentage of (c) in the coating solution exist and a volume percentage of (b) in the coating solution is exist (Paragraphs 13 & 15, respectively).
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 low noise cable core of modified Schombourg to comprise either the first or second type conductive layer being formed by the conductive composition configuration as taught by Yanhui because Yanhui teaches that such a conductive composition configuration provides a conductive composition that may be formed into conductive layers utilized as a shielding materials for reducing the harmful effects of electromagnetic wave (i.e. EMI, Paragraphs 2-4), wherein the conductive layer is of easy processing, convenient construction, and low cost (Paragraph 4), while also having excellent conductivity thereby reducing skin effect, resulting in good shielding performance (Paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the conductive composition of modified Schombourg to comprise the volume percentage of (c) in the coating solution being no less than 3% and a volume percentage of (b) in the coating solution being no less than 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 low noise cable cores.
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
January 9, 2025