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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka et al. (2011/0042120).
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 and defining a first circular cross section; a bedding layer (13) filling an empty space between the shielding layer and the pair of cores; and an outer skin layer (15) formed on an exterior of the shielding layer and defining a second circular cross section. It is noted that the cable of Otsuka et al. is an Ethernet cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
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 1-3, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. in view of Uegaki et al. (12136502).
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-claim 1).
Otsuka et al. does not disclose an average diameter the insulator and an average diameter of the bedding layer satisfy the claimed equation (re-claim 1).
Uegaki 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, 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.
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 Uegaki 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-claim 2, Uegaki et al., Fig. 3, discloses a conductor comprised of six wires arranged around one central wire. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the conductor of Otsuka et al. to comprise six wires arranged around one central wire (i.e., stranded conductor) as taught by Uegaki et al. to improve the conductor flexibility.
Re-claim 3, 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).
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uegaki et al. in view of Van Der Meer (2012/0000690).
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 (re-claim 1).
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 (re-claim 1).
Van Der Meer discloses a cable comprising a pair of cores; a bedding layer (108); a shielding layer (114/116) covering the pair of cores; and an outer skin layer (120) formed on an exterior of the shielding layer (re-claim 1). Van Der Meer also discloses that the shielding layer includes a first shielding layer (114) formed on the bedding layer ([0033]) and a second shielding layer (116) formed on and conformal to the first shielding layer, wherein the first shielding layer includes an Al-Mylar and the second shielding layer includes tin-plated copper braid ([0033]) (re-claims 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Van Der Meer in modifying the cable of Uegaki 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 Uegaki 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-claim 1).
Re-claims 9-11, Uegaki et al. discloses the bedding layer being made of polyethylene or cross-linked polyethylene or polypropylene (col. 5 lines 47-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights