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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (KR-101978699) in view of Hayashishita et al. (2016/0035459).
Huang et al. discloses a multi-core cable comprising a core in which a plurality of coated electric wires (61) are stranded (see Ex. 2-1); a jacket (67) positioned outside the core; and a shield layer (65) positioned between the core and the jacket, wherein the shield layer includes a braided conductor in which metal wire bundles, each being a bundle of a plurality of parallel metal wires, are braided (Fig. 2), wherein an outer diameter of the metal wires is 0.05 mm or greater and 0.08 mm or less (0.08 mm, see Ex-2-1), and wherein the braided conductor has a braiding pitch of 30 mm (re-claim 1).
Huang et al. does not disclose the braided conductor having a braiding density of 91% or higher and 95% or lower, and the braiding pitch being five to six times an outer diameter of the core (re-claims 1 and 4).
Hayashishita et al. discloses a multi-core cable comprising a braided conductor (23) having a braiding density of 95% ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the braided conductor of Huang et al. to have a braiding density of 95%, as taught by Hayashishita et al., to increase the shielding effect in the cable.
Hayashishita et al. discloses the core having an outer diameter of 5.4 mm ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the core of Huang et al. to have an outer diameter taught by Hayashishita et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It is noted that in the modified multi-core cable of Huang et al., the braiding pitch of the braided conductor is five to six times the outer diameter of the core. Specifically, in the modified multi-core of Huang et al., the core has an outer diameter of 5.4 mm (taught by Hayashishita) and the braiding pitch is 30 mm (disclosed in Huang) => 30 mm = 5.5 x 5.4 mm.
Re-claim 3, Hayashishita et al. discloses the multi-core cable further comprising a press winding (22, [0037]) covering an outer surface of the core. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the press winding as taught by Hayashishita et al. in the multi-core cable of Huang et al. to further protect the core. It is noted that in the modified multi-core cable of Huang et al., the press winding is positioned between the core and the shield layer (65).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Hayashishita et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (2014/0069683).
Huang et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed except for in a cross-section of the core perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the core, the coated wires being positioned in a plurality of layers about the center of the core, wherein the coated wires positioned on an outer surface of the core are positioned along a circumscribed circle of the core.
Tanaka et al. discloses a multi-core cable comprising core including a plurality of coated wires (11-13) which are positioned in a plurality of layers about the center of the core, wherein the coated wires positioned on an outer surface of the core are positioned along a circumscribed circle of the core (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the core of Huang et al. to comprise a plurality of coated wires arranged in layers as taught by Tanaka et al. for multiple transmission purposes, signals and power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,, 3, and 4 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Huang discloses a braided conductor comprising bundles, each formed of parallel wires; Hayashishita discloses a braided conductor comprising bundles, each formed of twisted wires; and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Hayashishita for teachings on how to achieve a braiding density as claimed. Examiner would disagree. Density of a braided layer depends on the openness of the braid, and the openness of the braid can be adjusted by the number of the bundles being used or by how closely the bundles being arranged, not the structure of each bundle. Furthermore, Hayashishita is relied upon only to support the position of providing a suitable density of a braided conductor to meet the specific shielding effect. Hayashishita does not have to disclose the wires in each bundle being parallel.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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