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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 09/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 21-31 and 33-40 are pending for examination. Claim 32 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regard to claim 31, the claim recites “an outer shield”. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an outer shield” recited in claim 21 or it is an additional outer shield. Clarification is requested by amendments. If they are the same element, it is suggested that “wherein the outer shield at least partially surrounds…” should be set forth in claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21-22, 24-31, 34-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogese (USPN 4,461,923 – applicant cited) in view of Koyasu et al. (USPGPUB 2003/0205402 – applicant cited) and further in view of Maruyama (USPN 5,796,043 – cited in previous action). In regard to claims 21 and 34, Bogese discloses a cable and an associated method (Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) comprising: a plurality of bundles (elements 12, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions), each of the plurality of bundles contacting at least two other of the plurality of bundles (any element(s) 12 which contacts the other two of elements 12, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) and comprising a jacket (elements 22, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) that at least partially surrounds a plurality of wires (elements 20, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions); a core comprising a plurality of threads (element 14, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions; multi-filament fiber, Col 4 lines 51-54); and an outer jacket at least partially surrounding the plurality of bundles and the core (elements 19, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions); the following limitations are required by claim 21 only) a separator (element 30, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) positioned between the outer jacket (elements 19, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) and an outer shield (element 28, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions), the separator being configured to allow at least some movement of the outer jacket relative to the outer shield (“The plastic laminate 30 and foil layer 28 are capable of flexing with the cable without damage to the shield”, Col 4 line 51 – Col 5 line 1; it is noted that the separator/ plastic laminate is capable of allowing at least some movement at the same or different portion(s) of the outer jacket relative to the outer shield due to its flexibility).
Bogese does not specifically discloses the core having a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles.
Koyasu teaches a cable (Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) comprises a plurality of bundles each of the plurality of bundles contacting at least two other of the plurality of bundles (elements 115/215, Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) and a core (elements 113/133/213, Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) having a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles (hollow elements 113/133 would have a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles, Figs. 5-8 and associated descriptions; or element 213 with predefined concave surfaces for contacting each of the plurality of bundles, Figs. 10-12 and associated descriptions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core (Bogese) to incorporate the hollow and/or curved configuration of the core and associated elements/ configurations as taught by Koyasu, since both devices are electric cables and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) of the core as taught by Koyasu facilitate stably secure the bundles in a constant arrangement(s) (see Koyasu). The rationale would have been to better support/ locate the wire bundles in a constant arrangement(s) in the cable.
Bogese as modified by Koyasu discloses the core comprises a plurality of threads (element 14, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions; multi-filament fiber, Col 4 lines 51-54 of Bogese) but does not specifically disclose the plurality of threads wrapped or weaved around another thread.
Maruyama teaches a cable (Figs. 1 and 7 and associated descriptions) comprises a core with braided/ twisted fibers (braided fibers, such as glass fibers, high-strength fibers with a high elastic modulus, such as "KEVLAR" fibers or the like, so as to form a hollow part 3 inside the reinforcing core 2, Fig. 1 and Col 2 lines 29-46; or solid core 19 is formed using twisted yarns of glass fibers, Fig. 7 and Col 1 lines 44-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration of the core (Bogese as modified by Koyasu) with the braided/ twisted fiber configuration(s) and associated elements/ materials as taught by Maruyama to yield predictable results, since both devices are cables and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that twisted or braided fibers are alternative equivalent configurations of forming a hollow or solid cable core (see Maruyama). The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
In regard to claims 22 and 35, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the core defines a central axis of the cable (Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Bogese; Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claims 24 and 37, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses each of the plurality of bundles contacts no more than two bundles of the plurality of bundles (Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Bogese; Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claims 25 and 39, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses no bundle of the plurality of bundles is concentric with another bundle of the plurality of bundles (Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Bogese; Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claims 26 and 40, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses no bundle of the plurality of bundles is concentric with the core (Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Bogese; Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claims 27 and 38, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the plurality of bundles are twisted or weaved around the core (Figs. 10-11 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claim 28, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the core comprises Kevlar fibers ("KEVLAR" fibers, Col 2 lines 29-46 of Maruyama).
In regard to claim 29, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the core is flexible and configured to reduce a tensile stress exerted on the plurality of bundles (referring to claim 21 above).
In regard to claim 30, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the plurality of bundles comprises four bundles (Figs. 10-11 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
In regard to claim 31, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses an outer shield that at least partially surrounds the plurality of bundles and the core, the outer shield being positioned proximate the plurality of bundles and the core relative to the outer jacket (element 28, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Bogese; element 219, Figs. 10-11 and associated descriptions of Koyasu).
Claims 23, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bogese, Koyasu and Maruyama as applied to claims 21-22, 24-31, 34-35, and 37-40 above, and further in view of Coffin et al. (USPGPUB 2003/0212312 – applicant cited). In regard to claims 23, 33 and 36, Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama discloses the cable is utilized in data communication applications (see Bogese and Koyasu) but does not specifically discloses a first bundle of the plurality of bundles comprises an inner shield that at least partially surrounds its plurality of wires, the inner shield being configured to provide electromagnetic interference protection to the plurality of wires of the first bundle and a physiological sensor system comprising: a noninvasive sensor comprising a detector configured to detect light attenuated by a body tissue of a patient and output a detector signal indicative of the light detected after attenuation by the body tissue; a patient monitor configured to receive the detector signal and determine one or more physiological parameters for the patient from the detector signal.
Coffin teaches a physiological sensor system (Figs. 1 and 3A-B and associated descriptions) comprising: a noninvasive sensor comprising a detector configured to detect light attenuated by a body tissue of a patient (element 114, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0009]) and output a detector signal indicative of the light detected after attenuation by the body tissue (signal outputs to element 164, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions); a patient monitor configured to receive the detector signal and determine one or more physiological parameters for the patient from the detector signal (element 160-168, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oxygen saturation, [0009]) and a first bundle (the bundle comprises twisted pair 360, Fig. 3A and associated descriptions) comprises an inner shield (element 340, Fig. 3A and associated descriptions; [0013]) that at least partially surrounds its plurality of wires (wires 360, Fig. 3A and associated descriptions), the inner shield being configured to provide electromagnetic interference protection to the plurality of wires of the first bundle (reduce EMI and crosstalk, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable (Bogese as modified by Koyasu and Maruyama) to incorporate the physiological sensor system and the inner shield configuration as taught by Coffin, since both devices utilize cables with twisted pairs of wires for communication and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the cable is being used in an oximetry system, at least one of the twisted pair bundle should be surrounded by an inner shield in order to reduce EMI and crosstalk within the cable (see Coffin). The rationale would have been to apply the cable in an oximetry system and provide additional EMI shielding to at least one of the bundles to reduce noise.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,053,280 in view of Koyasu. In regard to claim 34, claims 1-3 and 18-19 of ‘280 recite “a cable comprising: a plurality of bundles, each of the plurality of bundles contacting at least two other of the plurality of bundles and comprising a jacket that at least partially surrounds a plurality of wires; a core comprising a plurality of threads wrapped or weaved around another thread; and an outer jacket at least partially surrounding the plurality of bundles and the core (claims 1-3 and 18-19 of ‘280) except the core having a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles. Koyasu teaches a cable (Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) comprises four or five bundles each of the plurality of bundles contacting at least two other of the plurality of bundles (elements 115/215, Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) and a core (elements 113/133/213, Figs. 5-8 and 10-12 and associated descriptions) having a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles (hollow elements 113/133 would have a plurality of concave surfaces formed from contact with the plurality of bundles, Figs. 5-8 and associated descriptions; or element 213 with predefined concave surfaces for contacting each of the plurality of bundles, Figs. 10-12 and associated descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the core (claims 1-3 and 18-19 of ‘280) to incorporate the hollow and/or curved configuration of the core and associated elements/ configurations as taught by Koyasu, since both devices are electric cables and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) of the core as taught by Koyasu facilitate stably secure the bundles in a constant arrangement(s) (see Koyasu). The rationale would have been to better support/ locate the wire bundles in a constant arrangement(s) in the cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the limitations previously recited in claim 32, applicant alleged that the element 30 is not an independent separator and there is no additional layer of any kind between the shield and the jacket of Bogese. In response, Bogese discloses a separator (elements 30, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) positioned between the outer jacket (elements 19, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions) and an outer shield (element 28, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions), the separator being configured to allow at least some movement of the outer jacket relative to the outer shield (“The plastic laminate 30 and foil layer 28 are capable of flexing with the cable without damage to the shield”, Col 4 line 51 – Col 5 line 1; it is noted that the separator/ plastic laminate is capable of allowing at least some movement at the same or different portion(s) of the outer jacket relative to the outer shield due to its flexibility).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Remarks, filed on 09/15/2026, with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claim 21 has been withdrawn. However, claim 34 does not recite “a separator”. Therefore, the DP rejection of claim 34 is maintained for the reasons of record.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights