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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/764,721, filed on July 5, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 5, 2024 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 5, 2024. 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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al (Pub Num 2023/0154652A, herein referred to as Nakayama). Nakayama discloses coaxial cable (Figs 1-4) having a favorable appearance, excellent processability (Paragraph 1), while also having a small diameter and favorable transmission characteristics (Paragraph 5). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Nakayama discloses a coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a central conductor (11) including a plurality of twisted conductor element wires (Fig 1, Paragraph 28), an insulator (12) disposed outside the central conductor (11), a shield layer (13, 14) disposed outside the insulator (12), and a jacket (16) disposed outside the shield layer (13, 14), wherein the shield layer (13, 14) includes a first shield layer (13) and a second shield layer (14) in an order from a position closest to the central conductor (11), wherein the first shield layer (13) includes a plurality of longitudinally lapped metal wires (Fig 1, Paragraph 32), the second shield layer (14) includes a metal tape disposed outside the first shield layer (13, Paragraph 32), wherein an outer diameter of the central conductor (11) is 0.2 mm or more and 0.4 mm or less (i.e. 0.09-1mm incorporates the entire range, Paragraph 29), and a twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor (11) is 6 times or more and 10 times or less the outer diameter of the central conductor (i.e. twist pitch is between 0.5-11mm, diameter is 0.09-1mm, therefore 0.5 (6)=3 twist length is within the twist pitch of 0.5-11mm).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (Pat Num 4,847,448) in view of Nakayama (Pub Num 2023/0154652A). Sato discloses a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3) having minimizing the outer diameter, sufficient flexibility, and sufficient shielding characteristics (Col 1, lines 50-54). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Sato discloses a coaxial cable (Fig 1-2) comprising a central conductor (1) including a plurality of twisted conductor element wires (Col 2, lines 10-12), an insulator (2) disposed outside the central conductor (1), a shield layer (3, 42) disposed outside the insulator (2) and a jacket (41) disposed outside the shield layer (3, 42), wherein the shield layer (3, 42) includes a first shield layer (3) and a second shield layer (42) in an order from a position closest to the central conductor (1), wherein the first shield layer (3) includes a plurality of longitudinally lapped metal wires (Fig 2, Col 2, lines 15-20), wherein the second shield layer (42) includes a metal tape disposed outside the first shield layer (3, Col 2, lines 21-25), an outer diameter of the central conductor is 0.2 mm or more and 0.4 mm or less (0.37mm, Col 2, lines 50-56), and a twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor (1, Fig 1). With respect to claim 2, Sato discloses a multi-core cable (Fig 2) comprising a core including a plurality of sheathed electric wires (A’s) including a coaxial cable (Fig 2) a coaxial cable (Fig 1-2) comprising a central conductor (1) including a plurality of twisted conductor element wires (Col 2, lines 10-12), an insulator (2) disposed outside the central conductor (1), a shield layer (3, 42) disposed outside the insulator (2) and a jacket (41) disposed outside the shield layer (3, 42), wherein the shield layer (3, 42) includes a first shield layer (3) and a second shield layer (42) in an order from a position closest to the central conductor (1), wherein the first shield layer (3) includes a plurality of longitudinally lapped metal wires (Fig 2, Col 2, lines 15-20), wherein the second shield layer (42) includes a metal tape disposed outside the first shield layer (3, Col 2, lines 21-25), an outer diameter of the central conductor is 0.2 mm or more and 0.4 mm or less (0.37mm, Col 2, lines 50-56), and a twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor (1, Fig 1) and an outer sheath (not numbered, Fig 2) disposed outside the core (Fig 2).
While Sato discloses a twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor, Sato doesn’t necessarily disclose the twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor being 6 times or more and 10 times or less the outer diameter of the central conductor (claim 1).
Nakayama teaches a coaxial cable (Figs 1-4) having a favorable appearance, excellent processability (Paragraph 1), while also having a small diameter and favorable transmission characteristics (Paragraph 5). Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Nakayama discloses a coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a central conductor (11) including a plurality of twisted conductor element wires (Fig 1, Paragraph 28), an insulator (12) disposed outside the central conductor (11), a shield layer (13, 14) disposed outside the insulator (12), and a jacket (16) disposed outside the shield layer (13, 14), wherein the shield layer (13, 14) includes a first shield layer (13) and a second shield layer (14) in an order from a position closest to the central conductor (11), wherein the first shield layer (13) includes a plurality of longitudinally lapped metal wires (Fig 1, Paragraph 32), the second shield layer (14) includes a metal tape disposed outside the first shield layer (13, Paragraph 32), wherein an outer diameter of the central conductor (11) is 0.2 mm or more and 0.4 mm or less (i.e. 0.09-1mm incorporates the entire range, Paragraph 29), and a twist pitch of the conductor element wires of the central conductor (11) is 6 times or more and 10 times or less the outer diameter of the central conductor (i.e. twist pitch is between 0.5-11mm, diameter is 0.09-1mm, therefore 0.5 (6)=3 twist length is within the twist pitch of 0.5-11mm).
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 coaxial cable of Sato to comprise the conductor configuration as taught by Nakayama because Nakayama teaches that such a configuration provides a coaxial cable (Figs 1-4) having a favorable appearance, excellent processability (Paragraph 1), while also having a small diameter and favorable transmission characteristics (Paragraph 5) and 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.
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.
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
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights