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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 16, 2028. These drawings are approved.
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(s) 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kochi et al (WO Pat Num 2021/149787, herein referred to as Kochi). Kochi discloses an ethernet cable (i.e. communication cable, Figs 1-11B) for high frequency data transfer and allowing for a simple cable internal structure (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claims 15 & 17, Kochi discloses a quad cable (1, Fig 1) for a vehicle (Paragraph 32) comprising a filler member (20) and four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) disposed around the filler member (20) and configured to include a plurality of wires (14, 14, 14, 14) having a total sum of cross-sectional areas of 0.15 to 0.17 mm2 (Paragraph 16 states that the diameter of the conductor is 0.45 mm = cross sectional area of 0.16 mm2) and an insulator (16, 16, 16, 16) surrounding the plurality of wires (14, 14, 14, 14), wherein the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch of 26 to 34 mm (i.e. 30mm, Paragraph 34) and wherein the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured in pairs of two (Paragraph 15), each pair (10A & 10B, 10C & 10D) of the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) being capable of transmission for different low voltage differential signaling (LVDS, Paragraph 32).
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochi (WO Pat Num 2021/149787) in view of Yasushi et al (JP Pat Num 11-144532A, herein referred to as Yasushi). Kochi discloses an ethernet cable (i.e. communication cable, Figs 1-11B) for high frequency data transfer and allowing for a simple cable internal structure (abstract), as disclosed above with respect to claim 15.
However, Kochi doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable comprising an attenuation per unit length (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal is 0.25 dB or less, nor a near end crosstalk of 50 dB or more over a transmission section of 100 meters (m), nor a characteristic impedance of 90 to 110 ohms (Ω) for a 50 MHz test signal (claim 17).
Yashushi teaches an quad cable (Figs 1-16) having good attenuation characteristics (Paragraph 7), while also reducing the outer diameter of the overall cable (Paragraph 8). Specifically, with respect to claim 17, Yashushi teaches a cable (Fig 1) comprising a filler member (8), which is made of at least one material of polyethylene (PE, Paragraph 33), and four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3) disposed around the filler member (8) and configured to include a plurality of wires (1, 1, 1, 1) having a total sum of cross-sectional area (Fig 1) and an insulator (2, 2, 2, 2) surrounding the plurality of wires (1, 1, 1, 1), wherein the four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch of 40 mm (Paragraph 33), wherein a shielding layer (6) surrounds the four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3, Paragraph 33), wherein the shielding layer (6) includes an aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer (i.e. Al-Polyester, Paragraph 34) and a braided layer configured to include at least one of tinned copper (Paragraph 18) surrounding the aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer and outer jacket (7) surrounding the shielding layer (6, Paragraph 34), wherein the cable (Fig 1) comprising an attenuation per unit length (i.e. 20 m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal (i.e. 1Mhz- 1GHz incorporates 50Mhz, Paragraph 11), a near end crosstalk and a characteristic impedance (Paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the quad cable of modified Kochi to comprise an attenuation per unit length (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal to be 0.25 dB or less, a near end crosstalk over a transmission section of 100 meters (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal to be 50 dB or more, a characteristic impedance of 90 to 110 ohms (Ω) for a 50 MHz test signal and an outer diameter of 4.5 to 6.0 millimeters, 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) 1-2, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochi (WO Pat Num 2021/149787) in view of Yasushi et al (JP Pat Num 11-144532A, herein referred to as Yasushi). Kochi discloses an ethernet cable (i.e. communication cable, Figs 1-11B) for high frequency data transfer and allowing for a simple cable internal structure (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Kochi discloses a quad cable (1, Fig 1) for a vehicle (Paragraph 32) comprising a filler member (20) and four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) disposed around the filler member (20) and configured to include a plurality of wires (14, 14, 14, 14) having a total sum of cross-sectional areas of 0.15 to 0.17 mm2 (Paragraph 16 states that the diameter of the conductor is 0.45 mm = cross sectional area of 0.16 mm2) and an insulator (16, 16, 16, 16) surrounding the plurality of wires (14, 14, 14, 14), wherein the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch of 26 to 34 mm (i.e. 30mm, Paragraph 34) and wherein the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured in pairs of two (Paragraph 15), each pair (10A & 10B, 10C & 10D) of the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) being capable of transmission for different low voltage differential signaling (LVDS, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 2, Kochi discloses that the collective pitch of the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) is preferably 29 to 31 mm (i.e. 30mm, Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 5, Kochi discloses that the plurality of wires (14, 14, 14, 14) constituting the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) having an average diameter of 0.16 to 0.18 mm (i.e. 0.16 mm, Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 7, Kochi discloses that the insulator (16, 16, 16, 16) of the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured to have a thickness of 0.3-0.6 mm (0.35 mm, Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 6, Kochi discloses that each of the four conductor wires (14, 14, 14, 14) is configured with seven wires, and wherein the seven wires are configured such that one wire is disposed in the center and six wires are disposed to be circumscribed therearound (Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 8, Kochi discloses that the filler member (20) is made of at least one material of polyethylene (PE) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and has an outer diameter of 0.5 to 0.6 mm, (i.e. 0.5mm, Paragraph 17). With respect to claim 9, Kochi discloses that each of the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) having an outer diameter of 1.12 mm (Paragraph 34). With respect to claim 10, Kochi discloses that the cable (1) has an outer diameter (Fig 1). With respect to claim 11, Kochi discloses that the cable (1) further comprises a shielding layer (30, 40) surrounding the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12), wherein the shielding layer (30) includes an aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer (i.e. Al-PET, Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 12, Kochi discloses that the shielding layer (30, 40) includes a braided layer (40) configured to include at least one of tinned copper (Paragraph 18) surrounding the aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer (30, Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 14, Kochi discloses that the cable (1, Fig 1) further comprises an outer jacket (50) surrounding the shielding layer (40, Paragraph 19).
However, Kochi doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable comprising an attenuation per unit length (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal is 0.25 dB or less, nor a near end crosstalk of 50 dB or more over a transmission section of 100 meters (m) (claim 1), nor the cable having a characteristic impedance of 90 to 110 ohms (Ω) for a 50 MHz test signal (claims 1 & 7), nor each of the four conductor wires having an outer diameter of 1.3 to 1.7 millimeters (claim 9), nor the cable having an outer diameter of 4.5 to 6.0 millimeters (claim 10).
Yashushi teaches an quad cable (Figs 1-16) having good attenuation characteristics (Paragraph 7), while also reducing the outer diameter of the overall cable (Paragraph 8). Specifically, with respect to claims 1 and 7, Yashushi teaches a cable (Fig 1) comprising a filler member (8), which is made of at least one material of polyethylene (PE, Paragraph 33), and four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3) disposed around the filler member (8) and configured to include a plurality of wires (1, 1, 1, 1) having a total sum of cross-sectional area (Fig 1) and an insulator (2, 2, 2, 2) surrounding the plurality of wires (1, 1, 1, 1), wherein the four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch of 40 mm (Paragraph 33), wherein a shielding layer (6) surrounds the four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3, Paragraph 33), wherein the shielding layer (6) includes an aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer (i.e. Al-Polyester, Paragraph 34) and a braided layer configured to include at least one of tinned copper (Paragraph 18) surrounding the aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer and outer jacket (7) surrounding the shielding layer (6, Paragraph 34), wherein the cable (Fig 1) comprising an attenuation per unit length (i.e. 20 m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal (i.e. 1Mhz- 1GHz incorporates 50Mhz, Paragraph 11), a near end crosstalk and a characteristic impedance (Paragraph 39). With respect to claim 9, Yashushi teaches that the four conductor wires (3, 3, 3, 3) may have an outer diameter of 1.3 to 1.7 millimeters (i.e. 1.6, 1.5, etc., Paragraph 10). With respect to claim 10, Yashushi teaches that the cable (Fig 1) has an outer diameter of 8mm (Paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 9, 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 quad cable of Kochi to comprise the four conductor wires to have an outer diameter of 1.3-1.7 mm configuration as taught by Yashushi because Yashushi teaches that such a configuration provides an cable (Figs 1-16) having good attenuation characteristics (Paragraph 7), while also reducing the outer diameter of the overall cable (Paragraph 8) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and a change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claims 1, 7, & 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the quad cable of modified Kochi to comprise an attenuation per unit length (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal to be 0.25 dB or less, a near end crosstalk over a transmission section of 100 meters (m) of the cable for a 50 MHz test signal to be 50 dB or more, a characteristic impedance of 90 to 110 ohms (Ω) for a 50 MHz test signal and an outer diameter of 4.5 to 6.0 millimeters, 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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochi (WO Pat Num 2021/149787) in view of Yasushi (JP Pat Num 11-144532A), as applied to claims 1 & 11 above (herein referred to as modified Kochi), further in view of Eshima (Pat Num 2010/0218970). Modified Kochi discloses an ethernet cable (i.e. communication cable, Figs 1-11B) for high frequency data transfer and allowing for a simple cable internal structure (abstract), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 11 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 13, modified Kochi discloses that the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch of 26 to 34 mm (i.e. 30mm, Paragraph 34) and the shielding layer (30) including an aluminum mylar (Al-mylar) tape layer (i.e. Al-PET, Paragraph 18) is helically wound (Paragraph 18) around the four conductor wires (12, 12, 12, 12).
However, modified Kochi doesn’t necessarily disclose the aluminum mylar (Al- mylar) tape layer being cross-wound in a direction different from a collective direction of the four conductor wires (claim 13).
Eshima teaches a quad cable (Figs 1-3B) that has excellent bending durability and shielding characteristics (Paragraph 8). Specifically, with respect to claim 13, Eshima teaches a quad cable (1, Fig 1) comprising four conductor wires (10, 10, 10, 10) configured to include a plurality of wires (12, 12, 12, 12) having a total sum of cross-sectional area (Fig 1) and an insulator (14, 14, 14, 14) surrounding the plurality of wires (12, 12, 12, 12), wherein the four conductor wires (10, 10, 10, 10) are configured to be assembled together at a collective pitch (Paragraph 41), and a shielding layer (20) surrounding the four conductor wires (10, 10, 10,10, Paragraph 44), wherein the shielding layer (20), may be cross wound in a direction different from the collective direction of the four conductor wires (10, 10, 10, 10, i.e. the shielding layer (20) may be laterally wounded in a right handed direction or left handed direction, one of which is opposite of the wounding direction of the conductor core, Paragraph 44).
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 quad cable of modified Kochi to comprise the shielding layer being cross-wound in a direction different from a collective direction of the four conductor wires configuration as taught by Eshima because Eshima teaches that such a configuration provides a quad cable (Figs 1-3B) that has excellent bending durability and shielding characteristics (Paragraph 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) The cited references, Kochi teaches away from the claimed range as the examiner has combined different embodiments of the Kochi reference, since the cable is utilized as a control in experimental data and therefore cannot anticipate the claimed invention.
B) None of the prior art references teaches the characteristic impedance being 90-100 ohms and therefore cannot be rendered obvious based on the teaching of the prior art references.
With respect to argument A, the examiner respectfully traverses. The fact that the Kochi reference teaches an cable comprising a range outside the claimed invention doesn’t preclude the fact that it teaches a cable comprising four conductors being twisted within the claimed range. Specifically, it has been held that patents are relevant for all they disclose.
''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”).
Therefore, because the Kochi reference teaches cable embodiments comprising four conductor wires, wherein the four conductors are disposed around a filler member at a collective pitch of 26-34mm (i.e. 30 mm), such a teaching of a cable utilized as a control still qualifies as prior art and therefore based on such a teaching, Kochi anticipates claim 15. In light of the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 15 is proper and just.
With respect to argument B, the examiner respectfully traverses. While the Kochi reference in combination with Eshima doesn’t teach the characteristic impedance as claimed, the claimed structure is taught by the combination of the two references. Since the claimed structure is present, a characteristic impedance has to exist and determining a specific characteristic impedance would be based on optimum testing in order to set a specific characteristic impedance, and therefore 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.
In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection is proper and just.
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
August 26, 2026
