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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/12/2026. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The Final rejection mailed 5/21/26 has been withdrawn. A new ground of rejection is introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 3 recites that the dielectric foam and gas are the only materials inside the electrically conductive shield, which is contradictory with claim 1 that claim 1 recites “at least one dielectric fiber extends through the dielectric foam. Therefore, as understood, the dielectric fiber is also inside the electrically conductive shield.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 5-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magner (US 20140110146).
As to claim 1, Magnet’s figures 1 and 3 shows a waveguide comprising: an inner electrical insulator (30) that comprises a dielectric foam ( foamed fluoropolymer filler, ¶0018) that extends along a length; and an electrically conductive shield (40, ¶0019) that surrounds and abuts the inner electrical insulator along a majority of the length, and at least one dielectric fiber (20, ¶0015 teaches that “[t]he insulated conductor portion 20 may include at least one conductor material 22, such as copper, aluminum, alloys, fiber electric hybrid materials, fiber optical material or any other material known within the industry.” Therefore, selecting fiber material for the insulated conductor portion 20 is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, i.e., optimum communication speed) that extends through the dielectric foam (figure 3), wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate radio frequency electrical signals (fiber optical used to transmit/receive RF signals is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Magner’s cable to transmit/receive RF signal for the purpose of providing more precise and stable communication), wherein the waveguide is devoid of electrically conductive material disposed inside the shield.
As to claim 2, the modified Magner’s figures show that the dielectric foam is a monolithic and homogenous structure.
Insofar as understood to claim 3, figure 1 shows that the dielectric foam and gas are the only materials inside the electrically conductive shield (it is inherent that foam comprises internal air/gas).
As to claim 5, fiber optical material comprises a filament and a tape are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include filament (fiber component, i.e., glass, and a tape in the fiber optical material for the purpose of ensure optimum performance and protecting the fiber.
As to claim 6, fiber optical material comprising EPTFE is a well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use EPTFE for the fiber optical material for the purpose of protecting the fiber material.
As to claim 7, the modified Magner’s figures show that the inner electrical insulator is elongate along a central axis, and the at least one dielectric fiber extends through the dielectric foam along a direction parallel to the central axis (figure 3).
As to claim 8, the modified Magner’s figures show that the dielectric foam is co-extruded with the electrically nonconductive fiber.
As to claim 9, the modified Magner’s figures show that the dielectric foam is cylindrical.
As to claim 10, the modified Magner’s figures show that the dielectric foam is extruded.
As to claim 11, the modified Magner’s figures show that the foam comprises a fluoropolymer (¶0015 or PTFE is a fluoropolymer).
As to claim 12, the modified Magner’s figures show that the foam comprises one of fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) and a perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) (¶0016).
As to claim 13, the modified Magner’s figures show that the foam comprises Teflon? (PTFE is a Teflon, ¶0017).
As to claim 14, the modified Magner’s figures show that the electrically conductive shield comprises a metal (¶0019).
As to claim 15, shield comprises a wrap is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a wrap in the shield for the purpose of improving durability.
As to claim 16, the electrically conductive shield comprises a coating is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include coating on the shield for the purpose of improving durability.
As to claim 17, the modified Magner’s figures show that that the electrically conductive shield comprises first (metal layer) and second (wrap or coating layer) layers.
As to claim 18, the modified Magner’s figures show that the electrically conductive shield provides total internal reflection.
As to claim 20, It is seen as an obvious design preference to use the device to propagate RF signal in order to ensure optimum performance, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 21, the modified Magner’s figures show that at least one dielectric fiber comprises a plurality of dielectric fibers (122 and 124figure 4)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magner (US 20140110146) in view of Kodama et al. (US 20130180752).
As to claim 19, the modified Magner’s figures fail to show an outer electrical insulator that surrounds the electrical shield. However, Kodama et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that comprises an outer electrical insulator 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include an outer electrical insulator surrounding Magner’s electrical shield for the purpose of reducing interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights