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.
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, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al (Pub Num 2014/0209347, herein referred to as Buck) in view of Hayashishita et al (Pub Num 2016/0314873, herein referred to as Hayashishita) and Hayashishita et al (Pat Num 9,390,842, herein referred to as Hayashishita2). Buck discloses a cable (Figs 1-4), that decreases the mutual capacitance and inductance between adjacent wires and lessens the effects of electromagnetic interference on signals propagated over the wires (Paragraph 16). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Buck discloses a cable (16, Fig 1) with a connector (22) comprising the connector (22) and the cable (16), wherein the cable (16) includes a plurality of electrical wires (210’s) including a coaxial electrical wire (210), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes a central conductor (220) being copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 24) and having a conductor cross-sectional area of 0.031mm2 to 0.06 mm2 (i.e. 0.020-0.13mm2 encompasses the entire range, Paragraph 24), wherein the connector (22) includes a substrate (20), and the cable (16) is connected to a contact part of the substrate (20, Fig 1), wherein the cable (16) includes a core (located at 210’s) comprising a plurality of electrical wires (210’s), a common shielding layer (205) disposed outside the core (located at 210’s), and an outer covering (200) disposed outside the common shielding layer (205, Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 2, Buck discloses a cable (16, Fig 1) with a connector (22) comprising the connector (22) and the cable (16), wherein the cable (16) includes a plurality of electrical wires (210’s) including a coaxial electrical wire (210), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes a central conductor (220) being copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 24) and having a conductor cross-sectional area of 0.07 mm2 to 0.13 mm2 (i.e. 0.020-0.13mm2 encompasses the entire range, Paragraph 24), wherein the connector (22) includes a substrate (20), and the cable (16) is connected to a contact part of the substrate (20, Fig 1), wherein the cable (16) includes a core (located at 210’s) comprising a plurality of electrical wires (210’s), a common shielding layer (205) disposed outside the core (located at 210’s), and an outer covering (200) disposed outside the common shielding layer (205, Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 3, Buck discloses a cable (16, Fig 1) with a connector (22) comprising the connector (22) and the cable (16), wherein the cable (16) includes a plurality of electrical wires (210’s) including a coaxial electrical wire (210), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes a central conductor (220) being copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 24) and having a conductor cross-sectional area of 0.01 mm2 to 0.025 mm2 (i.e. 0.020-0.025 mm2, Paragraph 24), wherein the connector (22) includes a substrate (20), and the cable (16) is connected to a contact part of the substrate (20, Fig 1), wherein the cable (16) includes a core (located at 210’s) comprising a plurality of electrical wires (210’s), a common shielding layer (205) disposed outside the core (located at 210’s), and an outer covering (200) disposed outside the common shielding layer (205, Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 4, Buck discloses that the cable (16) includes at least one pair of coaxial electrical wires (210, 210). With respect to claim 6, Buck discloses that the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes an external conductor (232) disposed outside the central conductor (220), wherein the external conductor (232) includes a copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 7, Buck discloses that the cable (16) includes at least one pair of coaxial electrical wires (210, 210). With respect to claim 9, Buck discloses that the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes an external conductor (232) disposed outside the central conductor (220), wherein the external conductor (232) includes a copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 10, Buck discloses that the cable (16) includes at least one pair of coaxial electrical wires (210, 210). With respect to claim 12, Buck discloses that the coaxial electrical wire (210) includes an external conductor (232) disposed outside the central conductor (220), wherein the external conductor (232) includes a copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 27).
While Buck discloses the central conductor and the external conductor being made of copper (Paragraphs 24 & 27, respectively), Buck doesn’t necessarily disclose the coaxial electrical wire including a central conductor being an annealed copper wire that is not plated and an attenuation of the coaxial electrical wire being 5.1 dB/m to 8.1 dB/m, wherein the core is constituted by twisting together the plurality of electrical wires (claim 1), nor the coaxial electrical wire including a central conductor being an annealed copper wire that is not plated and an attenuation of the coaxial electrical wire being 4.0 dB/m to 5.0 dB/m, wherein the core is constituted by twisting together the plurality of electrical wires (claim 2), nor the coaxial electrical wire including a central conductor being an annealed copper wire that is not plated and an attenuation of the coaxial electrical wire being 10 dB/m to 12 dB/m, wherein the core is constituted by twisting together the plurality of electrical wires (claim 3), nor a skew of the pair of coaxial electrical wires is 10 ps/m or less (claims 4, 7, 10), nor wherein the external conductor includes an annealed copper wire that is not plated (claims 6, 9, 12).
Hayashishita teaches a cable (Figs 1-4), that suppresses cross talk between coaxial wire pairs (Paragraph 8), while also preventing the increase of skew in the coaxial wire pairs (Paragraph 24), wherein a positional relationship among the coaxial wires arranged in the multi-core cable can be stably arranged without being deviated (Paragraph 25). Specifically, with respect to claims 1-3, Hayashishita teaches a cable (1, Fig 1) that includes a plurality of electrical wires (Fig 1) including a coaxial electrical wire (10), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (10) includes a central conductor (21) being made of stranded annealed copper wire that is not plated (Paragraph 34) and having a conductor cross-sectional area of 0.07 mm2 to 0.13 mm2 (i.e. 0.048-0.12mm2 encompasses most of the claimed range, Paragraph 34), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (10) has an attenuation (Fig 3), wherein the cable (1) includes a core (located at 10’s & 30’s) constituted by twisting together (i.e. stranding) the plurality of electrical wires (10’s, Paragraph 28). With respect to claims 4, 7, and 10, Hayashishita teaches that a skew of a pair of coaxial electrical wires (11) is 10 ps/m or less (i.e. less than 8 ps/m, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 6, 9, and 12, Hayashishita teaches that the coaxial electrical cable (10) includes a central conductor (21) and an external conductor (23a) surrounding the central conductor (21) and being made of annealed copper wire (Paragraph 36).
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 Buck to comprise the coaxial electrical cable being made of annealed copper configuration as taught by Hayashishita because Hayashishita teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-4), that suppresses cross talk between coaxial wire pairs (Paragraph 8), while also preventing the increase of skew in the coaxial wire pairs (Paragraph 24), wherein a positional relationship among the coaxial wires arranged in the multi-core cable can be stably arranged without being deviated (Paragraph 25).
With respect to claims 1-3, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the coaxial electrical wire of Buck to comprise attenuation to be 5.1 dB/m to 8.1 dB/m or 4.0 dB/m to 5.0 dB/m or 10dB/m-12dB/m, 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.
While Buck also discloses the core (located at 210’s) is surrounded by common shielding layer (205) and an outer covering (200), Buck doesn’t necessarily disclose the securing windings disposed between the core and the common shielding layer and made of a metal tape or resin tape having electrical conductivity around the core (claims 1-3).
Hayahshishita2 teaches a cable (Figs 1-2) that can be disposed efficiently in a narrow space, thereby enabling miniaturization of the multi-core cable (Col 2, lines 17-21), wherein the cable can be terminated easily and the manufacturing cost is reduced (Col 2, lines 17-25). Specifically, with respect to claims 1-3, Hayahshishita2 teaches a cable (10, Fig 1), which includes a plurality of electrical wires (11) including a coaxial electrical wire (Col 2, lines 42-51), wherein the coaxial electrical wire (11) includes a central conductor (12), wherein the cable (10) includes a core (located at 10’s, 25’s, 21’s) constituted by twisting together the plurality of electrical wires (10’s, Col 4, lines 20-22), a common shielding layer (42) disposed outside the core (located at 10’s, 25’s, 21’s), and an outer covering (30) disposed outside the common shielding layer (42) and securing windings (41) disposed between the core (located at 10’s, 25’s, 21’s) and the common shielding layer (42, Fig 1, Col 4, lines 27-30), wherein the windings (41) is a resin tape having electrical conductivity around the core (Col 4, lines 31-45).
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 Buck to comprise the coaxial electrical cable having windings disposed between the core and the common shielding layer, wherein the windings are made of a resin tape having electrical conductivity configuration as taught by Hayashishita2 because Hayashishita2 teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-2) that can be disposed efficiently in a narrow space, thereby enabling miniaturization of the multi-core cable (Col 2, lines 17-21), wherein the cable can be terminated easily and the manufacturing cost is reduced (Col 2, lines 17-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights