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 § 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 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (2024/0150554) in view of Van Der Meer (2012/0000690).
Shimada et al. discloses a cable (1) comprising a pair of cores (11), each core including an insulator (13) covering a conductor, and twisted with each other ([0045]); and a bedding layer (20) surrounding the pair, wherein an average diameter of the insulator and an average diameter of the bedding layer satisfy the claimed equation. Specifically, Shimada et al. discloses that the average diameter of the bedding layer is 4.0 mm ([0052]), and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm ([0049]), see applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [67], it is disclosed that the average diameter of the bedding layer is between 3.000329 mm and 6.005254, and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm (re-claims 1 and 13).
Shimada et al. does not disclose the cable comprising a shielding layer covering the pair of cores and an outer skin layer formed on an exterior of the shielding layer (re-claims 1 and 13).
Van Der Meer discloses a cable comprising a pair of cores; a bedding layer (108); a shielding layer (112) including a first shielding layer (114) formed on and conformal to the bedding layer ([0033], in one embodiment, the aluminum/mylar tape 114 being pulle around the filler compound 108) and a second shielding layer (116) formed on and conformal to the first shielding layer ([0033], the tin plated copper braid 116 is weaved around the aluminum/mylar tape 114) ; and an outer skin layer (120) formed on an exterior of the shielding layer and conformal to the shielding layer ([0033], jacket 120 is extruded around the shielding member 112) (re-claims 1 and 13). Van Der Meer also discloses that the first shielding layer includes an Al-Mylar and the second shielding layer includes tin-plated copper braid ([0033]) (re-claims 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Van Der Meer in modifying the cable of Shimada et al. by providing an Al-Mylar on the bedding layer (20), a tin-plated copper braid on the Al-Mylar, and an outer skin layer on the tin-plated copper braid, to providing a shielding means and protecting means for the cores. It is noted that the modified cable of Shimada et al. is an Ethernet cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed; the shielding layer (of Van Der Meer) is conformal to an outer surface of the bedding layer (20); and the outer skin layer (of Van Der Meer) is conformal to the shielding layer (re-claims 1 and 13).
Re-claim 2, Shimada et al. discloses in the conductor, six conductor wires being arranged around one central wire ([0047] and Fig. 3).
Re-claim 13, Shimada et al., as modified, discloses the first shielding layer defining a first circular cross-section, the second shielding layer defining a second circular cross-section, and the outer skin layer defining a third circular cross-section.
Re-claim 14, Shimada et al. discloses the diameter of the bedding layer (20, having a diameter of 4.0 mm as disclosed by the applicant) and the diameter of the insulator (diameter of wire 11, having a diameter of 0.9 mm as disclosed by the applicant) being configured to yield a characteristics impedance differential mode for the Ethernet cable of 97-103 Ω ([0002] and [0010]).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (2011/0042120) in view of Van Der Meer and Shimada et al.
Otsuka et al. discloses a cable comprising a pair of cores, each core including an insulator (12) covering a conductor (11), and twisted ([0028]) with each other; a shielding layer (14) covering the pair of cores; a bedding layer (13) filling an empty space between the shielding layer and the pair of cores and to which the shielding layer is conformal to an outer surface thereof; and an outer skin layer (15) formed on an exterior of the shielding layer and conformal to the shielding layer (re-claims 1 and 16).
Otsuka et al. does not disclose the shielding layer including a first shielding layer and a second shielding layer; and an average diameter the insulator and an average diameter of the bedding layer satisfy the claimed equation (re-claims 1 and 16).
Van Der Meer discloses a cable comprising a shielding layer (112) including a first shielding layer (114) which includes an aluminum-mylar and a second shielding layer (116) which is formed on the first shielding layer and includes a tin-plated copper braid (re-claims 1, 5, 6, and 16). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the shielding layer (14) of Otsuka et al. to comprise first Al-Mylar shielding layer and second tin-plated copper braid, as taught by Van Der Meer, to increase the shielding effect in the cable.
Shimada et al. discloses a cable comprising a pair of cores, each including an insulator (13) covering a conductor (12) and a bedding (20) surrounding the pair of cores, wherein an average diameter the insulator and an average diameter of the bedding layer satisfy the claimed equation. Specifically, Shimada et al. discloses that the average diameter of the bedding layer is 4.0 mm ([0052]), and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm ([0049]), see applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [67], it is disclosed that the average diameter of the bedding layer is between 3.000329 mm and 6.005254, and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to respectively provide the insulator and the bedding of Otsuka et al. with the diameters taught by Shimada et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable. It is noted that the modified cable of Otsuka et al. is an Ethernet cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Re-claims 3 and 15-17, Otsuka et al. discloses the twisted pairing pitch of the pair of cores being 7 mm or more and 10 mm or less ([0028]).
Re-claim 8, Otsuka et al. discloses the bedding layer being made of PVC ([0029]-[0030], material 13…the same as material 12 which is PVC). Otsuka et al. does not disclose the base polymer resin for the insulator being EVA. Shimada et al. discloses an insulator (13) which is made of EVA ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use EVA, as taught by Shimada et al., as the base polymer resin of the insulator of Otsuka et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since EVA is known for its flexibility and elasticity.
Re-claim 12, Otsuka et al. discloses the bedding layer being made of a fluorocarbon resin, but does not disclose being made of FEP. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the bedding layer of Otsuka et al. to be made of FEP since this material is well-known in the art for being used as insulating material because of its low dielectric constant.
Re-claim 16, in the modified cable of Otsuka et al., the diameter of the bedding layer (13) and the diameter of the insulator (diameter of wire 11) being configured to yield a characteristics impedance differential mode for the Ethernet cable of 97-103 Ω (Shimada et al., [0002] & [0010], discloses the diameter of the bedding layer 20 being 4.0 mm as disclosed by the applicant; and the diameter of the insulator being 0.9 mm as disclosed by the applicant).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uegaki et al. (12136502) in view of Van Der Meer.
Uegaki et al. discloses a cable (1) comprising a pair of cores (11), each core including an insulator (13) covering a conductor (12), and twisted with each other; and a bedding (20) surrounding the pair of cores, wherein an average diameter of the insulator and an average diameter of the bedding layer satisfy the claimed equation. Specifically, Uegaki et al. discloses that the average diameter of the bedding layer is 4.0 mm (col. 6, lines 14-17), and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm (col. 5, lines 21-22), see applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [67], it is disclosed that the average diameter of the bedding layer is between 3.000329 mm and 6.005254, and the average diameter of the insulator is 0.9 mm.
Uegaki et al. does not disclose the cable comprising a shielding layer covering the pair of cores and an outer skin layer formed on an exterior of the shielding layer.
Van Der Meer discloses a cable comprising a pair of cores; a bedding layer (108); a shielding layer (112) covering the pair of cores, wherein the shielding layer includes a first shielding layer (114) and a second shielding layer (116) formed on the first shielding layer; and an outer skin layer (120) formed on an exterior of the shielding layer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Van Der Meer in modifying the cable of Uegaki et al. by respectively providing a first shielding layer, a second shielding layer, and an outer skin layer, as taught by Van Der Meer, on the bedding layer of Uegaki et al. to provide a shielding means and protecting means for the cores.
It is noted that the modified cable of Uegaki et al. is an Ethernet cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed; the fisrt shielding layer (of Van Der Meer) is conformal to an outer surface of the bedding layer (20); the second shielding layer is formed on and conformal to the first shielding layer; and the outer skin layer (of Van Der Meer) is formed on an exterior of the shielding layer and conformal to the shielding layer.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uegaki et al. in view of Van Der Meer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimada et al.
Uegaki et al., as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the bedding layer being made of XLPE or polypropylene (col. 5, lines 47-59). Uegaki et al. does not disclose the base polymer resin of the insulator being made of EVA. Shimada et al. discloses Shimada et al. discloses an insulator (13) which is made of EVA ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use EVA, as taught by Shimada et al., as the base polymer resin of the insulator of Otsuka et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since EVA is known for its flexibility and elasticity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13-17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Applicant argues that the jacket 120 of Van Der Meer cannot reasonably describe the claimed outer skin layer because the jacket 120 is neither “formed on an exterior of the shielding layer” nor “conformal to the shielding layer” due to the interposed tape 118.
Examiner would disagree. First, in last six lines of paragraph [0033], Van Der Meer discloses that “[I]n one embodiment, the jacket 120 is extruded around the shielding layer 112.” Accordingly, the jacket 120 is formed on an exterior of the shielding layer and conformal to the shielding layer as claimed. Second, the claimed invention calls for “an outer skin layer formed on an exterior of the shielding layer,” claims 1 and 16 or “an outer skin layer formed on an exterior of…the second shielding layer,” claim 13. Even if Van Der Meer has layer 118 between the shielding layer 112 and jacket 120, the jacket 120 of Van Der Meer is formed on an exterior of the shielding layer, not adjacent to an exterior of the shielding layer but on an exterior of the shielding layer.
“Conformal” or “conform” is defined as to give the same shape, outline, or contour. In the modified cable of Shimada et al., Otsuka et al., and Uegaki et al., each having the outer skin 120 of Van Der Meer conforms or contours to the exterior surface of the shielding layer.
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
