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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/18/24. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-10 and 12-20 are amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/24, 04/17/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrand (US 4129841).
Regarding Claim 1, Hildebrand teaches a cable (Fig. 2), comprising: a first part and a second part, wherein the first part comprises a cable core (Fig. 2: 1), a metal layer (Fig. 2: 2), and a dielectric layer (Fig. 2: 3); the metal layer wraps the cable core, and the dielectric layer is sandwiched between the cable core and the metal layer; the second part comprises a plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5); an insulation unit (Fig. 2: 4); and the plurality of metal units is are spacedly disposed on the metal layer, and the insulation unit is sandwiched between the plurality of metal units and the metal layer.
Hildebrand does not explicitly teach (Fig. 2: 4) being dielectric units. However, [col3 ln20-25l] teaches “The dielectric insulation 3 may be of solid material, but it is preferred for reasons of weight that the insulation be a foamed polymer or the like.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hildebrand in order for the insulation unit 4 to be a dielectric since it is well known that all dielectrics are insulators as it is illustrated by the dielectric insulator 3.
Regarding Claim 2, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of dielectric units (Fig. 2: each section of 4 acts as a unit in combination with each unit 5), wherein a quantity of the plurality of dielectric units is equal to a quantity of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: each 5 is match to a section of 4), and one of the plurality of dielectric units is sandwiched between one of the plurality of metal units and the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2)
Regarding Claim 3, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, wherein there is one dielectric unit (Fig. 2: 4), and the dielectric unit wraps the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2), and is disposed between the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) and the metal layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, wherein a first metal unit one of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) is disposed on a first annular area of the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2); and the first metal unit completely or at least partially covers the first annular area.
Regarding Claim 5, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 4, wherein a shape of the first metal unit (Fig. 2: 5) comprises a circular ring shape (Fig. 2: 5 is cylindrical) or a spiral shape
Regarding Claim 6, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, wherein that the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) are being spacedly disposed on the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2) comprises: the plurality of metal units are is equally spaced on the metal layer.
Regarding Claim 10, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 2, wherein at least two of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) are the same; and when the quantity of the plurality of dielectric units (Fig.2 : 4) is equal to the quantity of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 4 equal the number of 5), and at least two of the plurality of dielectric units are the same (Fig. 2: 5 are the same).
Regarding Claim 11, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, wherein the cable comprises a coaxial cable (Fig. 2 is a coaxial cable).
Regarding Claim 12, Hildebrand teaches the cable according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of metal units is (Fig. 2: 5 are on the same layer) are located at a same layer.
Regarding Claim 13, Hildebrand teaches a communication system- comprising: a cable and a first antenna array (Fig. 2: plurality of 5, [col1 ln10-15]), wherein the cable is located on a radiation path of the first antenna array; and the cable comprises: a first part and a second part, wherein the first part comprises a cable core (Fig. 2: 1), a metal layer (Fig. 2: 2), and a dielectric layer (Fig. 2: 3); the metal layer wraps the cable core, and the dielectric layer is sandwiched between the cable core and the metal layer; the second part comprises a plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) and a insulation unit (Fig. 2: 4); and the plurality of metal units is spacedly disposed on the metal layer, and the insulation unit is sandwiched between the plurality of metal units and the metal layer.
Hildebrand does not explicitly teach (Fig. 2: 4) being dielectric units. However, [col3 ln20-25l] teaches “The dielectric insulation 3 may be of solid material, but it is preferred for reasons of weight that the insulation be a foamed polymer or the like.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hildebrand in order for the insulation unit 4 to be a dielectric since it is well known that all dielectrics are insulators as it is illustrated by the dielectric insulator 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Hildebrand teaches the communication system according to claim 13, further comprising: a plurality of dielectric units (Fig. 2: 4), wherein a quantity of the plurality of dielectric units is equal to a quantity of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: number of 5 corresponding with equal sections of 4), and one of the plurality of dielectric units is sandwiched between one of the plurality of metal units and the metal layer (Fig. 2; 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Hildebrand teaches the communication system according to claim 13, wherein there is one dielectric unit (Fig. 2; 5), and the dielectric unit (Fig. 2: 4) wraps the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2), and is disposed between the plurality of metal units and the metal layer.
Regarding Claim 17, Hildebrand teaches the communication system according to claim 13, wherein a first metal unit one of the plurality of metal units (Fig. 2: 5) is disposed on a first annular area of the metal layer(Fig. 2: 2); and the first metal unit completely or partially covers the first annular area.
Regarding Claim 18, Hildebrand teaches the communication system according to claim 13, wherein a shape of the metal unit (Fig. 2: 5) comprises a circular ring shape (Fig. 2: 5 is cylindrical) or a spiral shape.
Regarding Claim 19, Hildebrand teaches the communication system according to claim 13, wherein that the plurality of metal units being (Fig. 2: 5) are spacedly disposed on the metal layer (Fig. 2: 2) comprises: the plurality of metal units are is equally spaced on the metal layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-9, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights