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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 21, 2026 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (Pub Num 2018/0281706) in view of Kithuka et al (Pat Num 9,601,233, herein referred to as Kithuka). Kobayashi discloses a cable (Figs 1-3) that reduces electromagnetic noise interference and cross talk between twisted pair wires (Paragraph 8). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a cable (1, Fig 1) comprises a plurality of covered electric wires (2) and an outer sheath (3), wherein the plurality of covered electric wires (2) includes two first covered electric wires (21), two second covered electric wires (23, 24) having a larger conductor cross-sectional area than the first covered electric wires (21, Paragraphs 32-33, Fig 1) and two third covered electric wires (22) having a smaller conductor cross-sectional area than the second covered electric wires (23, 24, Paragraphs 32-33, Fig 1), and wherein the two first covered electric wires (21) are twisted together along a longitudinal direction thereof to form a first twisted wire pair (two 211s & 212s, Paragraph 32), the two third covered electric wires (22) are twisted together along a longitudinal direction thereof to form a second twisted wire pair (two 221s & 222s, Paragraph 32), wherein a twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair (22) is longer than a twist pitch of the first twisted wire pair (21, Paragraph 40), wherein the first twisted wire pair (21), the two second covered electric wires (23, 24), and the second twisted wire pair (22) are twisted together to form a core (2, Paragraph 33), wherein in the core (2), at least a partial contact is provided between the first covered electric wires (21) and the second covered electric wires (23, 24), between the second covered electric wires (23, 24) and the third covered electric wires (22), and between the two first covered electric wires (21), and the outer sheath (3) is arranged to cover the core (2, Fig 1). With respect to claim 6, Kobayashi discloses that a cross-section (located at L) perpendicular to a longitudinal direction (L), when the cross-section (located at L) is divided into a first region (right bottom, Fig 1) and a second region (top left, Fig 1) by a straight line (L) connecting centers (O1 & O2, respectively) of the two second covered electric wires (23, 24, Paragraph 38), wherein the two first covered electric wires (21) are arranged in the first region (right bottom, Fig 1) and the third covered electric wires (22) are arranged in the second region (top left, Fig 1). With respect to claim 8, Kobayashi discloses that the cable (1) further comprising a release material (4) disposed outside the core (2, Paragraph 36, Fig 1).
While Kobayashi discloses the second twisted wire pair (22) and the overall core (2) having a twisted direction (Paragraphs 32-33), Kobayashi doesn’t necessarily disclose the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair is longer than a twist pitch of the core (claim 1), nor a twist direction of the second twisted wire pair is different from a twist direction of the core (claim 2), nor the cable further comprising a shield layer covering the core, wherein the outer sheath is arranged to cover the shield layer (claim 7).
Kithuka teaches a cable (Figs 1-6D), wherein cross talk between the adjacent twisted pairs are reduced (Col 2, lines 55-56), while reduces the propagation delay of the twisted pairs, thereby permitting the cable to satisfy relevant propagation delay, as well as other performance standards set forth in category 6 cabling standards (Cols 2-3, lines 67 & 1-7, respectively). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Kithuka teaches that teaches a cable (100, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of covered electric wires (105A-105D) and an outer sheath (110), wherein the plurality of covered electric wires (105A-105D) includes two first covered electric wires (105A), two second covered electric wires (105B) having a conductor cross-sectional area (Fig 1) and two third covered electric wires (105C) having a conductor cross-sectional area (Fig 1), wherein the two first covered electric wires (105A) are twisted together along a longitudinal direction thereof to form a first twisted wire pair (Col 3, lines 28-41, Fig 1), the two third covered electric wires (105B) are twisted together along a longitudinal direction thereof to form a second twisted wire pair (Col 3, lines 28-41, Fig 1), wherein a twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair (105B) may be longer than a twist pitch of the first twisted wire pair (105A, Col 3, lines 28-41), and wherein the first twisted wire pair (105A), the two second covered electric wires (105B), and the second twisted wire pair (105C) are twisted together to form a core (Fig 1, Cols 3-4, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively), in the core (Fig 1), wherein the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair (105C) may be longer than a twist pitch of the core (i.e. greater than 0.8 inches incorporates and may be bigger than 1.9 inches, Cols 3 & 4, lines 60-65 & 1-3, respectively). With respect to claim 2, Kithuka teaches that a twist direction of the second twisted wire pair (105C) is different from a twist direction of the core (Fig 1, Col 4, lines 16-22, Fig 6C). With respect to claim 7, Kithuka teaches that the cable (100, Fig 1) further comprising a shield layer (115) covering the core (Fig 1), wherein the outer sheath (110) is arranged to cover the shield layer (115, Col 7, lines 52-61).
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 Kobayashi to comprise the twisted pair/core and shielding configuration as taught by Kithuka because Kithuka teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-6D), wherein cross talk between the adjacent twisted pairs are reduced (Col 2, lines 55-56), while reduces the propagation delay of the twisted pairs, thereby permitting the cable to satisfy relevant propagation delay, as well as other performance standards set forth in category 6 cabling standards (Cols 2-3, lines 67 & 1-7, respectively).
While Kobayashi also discloses the second twisted wire pair (22) and the overall core (2) having a twisted direction (Paragraphs 32-33), Kobayashi doesn’t necessarily disclose the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair is greater than or equal to 50 times an outer diameter of each of the third covered electric wires (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cable of Kobayashi to comprise the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair is greater than or equal to 50 times an outer diameter of each of the third covered electric wires, 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (Pub Num 2018/0281706) in view of Kithuka (Pat Num 9,601,233), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as Kithuka), further in view of Koeppendoerfer et al (Pub Num 2019/0107574, herein referred to as Koeppendoerfer). Modified Kobayashi discloses a cable (Figs 1-3) that reduces electromagnetic noise interference and cross talk between twisted pair wires (Paragraph 8), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
While modified Kobayashi discloses the third covered wire pair (22) and the overall core having a twisted direction (Paragraphs 32-33), modified Kobayashi doesn’t necessarily disclose the two third covered electric wires being bend detection lines that detect bending of the cable (claim 9), nor the bending of the cable being detectable based on a change in impedance of the two third covered electric wires (claim 11).
Koeppendoerfer teaches a method of monitoring an electrical line (Figs 1-4), which may be a pair of wires (i.e. plurality of conductors, Paragraph 27), wherein the method is utilized for electrical lines that are subject to mechanical stress due to repeated bending (Paragraph 27), wherein the method is simple and economical (Paragraph 4). Specifically, with respect to claims 9 & 11, Koeppendoerfer teaches a cable (4) comprising a plurality of conductors (6, plurality of 8s, Paragraph 37), wherein the plurality of conductors (6, plurality of 8s, Paragraph 37) comprises a measuring conductor (6) is a bend detection line (Paragraph 38) the detects bending of the cable (4) based on a change in impedance (Paragraph 8).
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 modified Kobayashi to comprise the cable having a bend detection conductor configuration as taught by Koeppendoerfer because Koeppendoerfer teaches that such a configuration provides a method of monitoring an electrical line (Figs 1-4), which may be a pair of wires (i.e. plurality of conductors, Paragraph 27), wherein the method is utilized for electrical lines that are subject to mechanical stress due to repeated bending (Paragraph 27), wherein the method is simple and economical (Paragraph 4) and Kobayashi could benefit from such an conductor since it is known that the cable of Kobayashi will be subject to repeated bending (examiner takes official notice) while being utilized as an ABS cable and attached to a bracket in a vehicle (Paragraphs 3 & 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) While Kithuka mentions as an exception that the twist lays of the pairs may be “greater than 0.80 inches”, Kithuka fails to teach or suggest the relationship between the twist lay of each twisted pair and the overall twist lay.
B) In, fact there is no technical teaching, suggestion, or motivation anywhere in Kithuka to set the twist pitch of a pair to be longer than the overall bunch lay of the core.
C) Table 1 provides specific calculated values for cases where a twisted pair is twisted in an opposite direction having a twist pitch (1.3 inches) but remains strictly shorter than the core twisted pitch (1.9 inches) and the magnitude relationship between the two pitches is never reversed.
With respect to arguments A-C, the examiner respectfully traverses. lt has been held that patents are relevant for all they disclose. Specifically, ''The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are pad of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.'' In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 , 1332- 33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).” The courts have been consistent that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874
F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 , 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. ''The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed”). In this case, Kithuka clearly teaches overlapping ranges because Kithuka teaches that the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair (105C) may be longer than a twist pitch of the core. That is, Kithuka clearly teaches overlapping ranges because the twist pitch of the second twisted wire pair may be greater than 0.8 inches (Col 3, lines 60-65), which overlaps the entire overall core twist length that is between 1.9-15 inches. The MPEP is clear, that when an range is overlapped/taught by the prior art, there exist a proper prima facie case of obviousness.
2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024]
See MPEP § 2131.03 for case law pertaining to rejections based on the anticipation of ranges under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 102 /103.
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d [AltContent: connector]1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
In this case, the entire core twist length is encompassed by the stated twist pitch of the twisted wire pair. See below:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]X>0. 8 inches (twist of individual twisted pairs indicated by black line
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: oval]0 0.8 inches 1.9 inches 15 inches
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector]
0 inches <X< 15 inches (core twist length indicated by light grey line)
The courts have been clear, that when an entire range is incorporated in the range cited by the prior art of record, there exist a proper prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, while the Table doesn’t illustrate the twist length incorporated by the specification, the specification of the Kithuda reference must be considered for ALL that it teaches, which is the twist pitch of the individual twisted pair being greater than 0.8 inches.
In light of the above, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection of claim 1, related to the relationship of the individual twist length and the overall core twist length is proper and just.
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 composite cables.
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
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights