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 30, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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) 1-4, 34, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Pub Num 2012/0298397) in view of Carroll (Pat Num 5,061,823). Suzuki discloses a radiating cable (Figs 1-8) that is manufactured easily at lower cost, has a reduction in diameter, while also preventing unwanted leakage of electromagnetic wave energy (Paragraph 22). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a radiating coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) comprising a plurality of slots (6), wherein the dielectric (2) being disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively) and a tape (4) disposed over the second conductor (3) configured to seal the plurality of slots (6, Paragraph 39, Fig 4) and providing a continuous seal over the second conductor (3, ie tape is attached to the second conductor, Paragraph 49), wherein the tape (4) having a thickness in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which is within the claimed range, Paragraph 39). With respect to claim 2, Suzuki discloses that the tape (4) has a thickness in a range of 0.95 to 1.05 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which encompasses the entire claimed range, Paragraph 39). With respect to claims 3-4, Suzuki discloses that the tape (4) may have a width of about 80mm (i.e. 3.14 inches, Paragraph 36). With respect to claim 34, Suzuki discloses that the cable (Fig 1) further comprises a jacket (5) disposed over the tape (4). With respect to claim 36, Suzuki discloses a radiating coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) comprising a plurality of slots (6), wherein the dielectric (2) being disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively) and a tape (4) disposed over the second conductor (3) configured to seal the plurality of slots (6, Paragraph 39, Fig 4), wherein the tape (4) having a thickness in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which is within the claimed range, Paragraph 39). With respect to claim 37, Suzuki discloses a radiating coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) comprising a plurality of slots (6), wherein the dielectric (2) being disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively) and a tape (4) disposed over the second conductor (3) configured to seal the plurality of slots (6, Paragraph 39, Fig 4), wherein the tape (4) having a thickness in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which is within the claimed range, Paragraph 39) and a jacket (5) disposed over the tape (4, Fig 1). With respect to claims 38-39, Suzuki discloses that the tape (4) has a thickness in a range of 0.5 to 1.05 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which is within the claimed range, Paragraph 39).
However, Suzuki doesn’t necessarily disclose the tape being formed of polyimide (claims 1, 36, & 37).
Carroll teaches a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a layer surrounding the outer conductor for the purpose of providing environmental protection to the inner conductor (Col 3, lines 67-68), while also reducing the diameter and weight of the overall cable and providing crush, kinking, and torque resistance (Col 4, lines 12-23). Specifically, with respect to claims 1, 36 and 37, Carroll teaches a coaxial cable (Fig 2) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3), wherein the dielectric (2) is disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively), a tape layer (5) disposed over the second conductor (3), wherein the tape layer may be made of a polyimide tape layer (Col 3, lines 39-47).
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 radiating cable of Suzuki to comprise the tape being made of a polyimide material configuration as taught by Carroll because Carroll teaches that such a configuration provides a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a layer surrounding the outer conductor for the purpose of providing environmental protection to the inner conductor (Col 3, lines 67-68), while also reducing the diameter and weight of the overall cable and providing crush, kinking, and torque resistance (Col 4, lines 12-23) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Suzuki also doesn’t necessarily disclose the tape having an width of 0.5 to 1.5 inches (claim 3), nor the tape having a width in a range of 0.95 to 1.05 inches (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the radiating cable of Suzuki to comprise the tape layer having a width in the range of 0.95-1.05 inches, 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) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Pub Num 2012/0298397) in view of Carroll (Pat Num 5,061,823), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Suzuki), further in view of Kitagawa (Pub Num 2005/0045545). Modified Suzuki discloses a radiating cable (Figs 1-8) that is manufactured easily at lower cost, has a reduction in diameter, while also preventing unwanted leakage of electromagnetic wave energy (Paragraph 22).
However, Suzuki doesn’t necessarily disclose the tape being made of a polymer comprising aromatic cycles or heterocycles (claim 8), nor the polymer is selected from a ladder polymer (claim 10).
Kitagawa teaches a polymer material that may be utilized as cable and electrical wires (Paragraph 40), wherein the polymer material high strength and elastic modulus, while also being industrially produced with ease (Paragraph 40). Specifically, with respect to claim 8, Kitagawa teaches that the polymer may comprise aromatic cycles or heterocycles, such as polybenzoxazole (PBO) (Paragraph 17). With respect to claim 10, Kitagawa teaches that ladder polymers are known and commercially available (Paragraph 6).
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 radiating cable of modified Suzuki to comprise the tape being made of an aromatic cycle and/or heterocycles configuration as taught by Kitagawa because Kitagawa teaches that such a configuration provides a polymer material that may be utilized as cable and electrical wires (Paragraph 40), wherein the polymer material high strength and elastic modulus, while also being industrially produced with ease (Paragraph 40) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Pub Num 2012/0298397) in view of Carroll (Pat Num 5,061,823), as applied to claims 1 & 34 above (herein referred to as modified Suzuki), further in view of in view of Rampalli et al (Pat Num 5,422,614, herein referred to as Rampalli). Modified Suzuki discloses a radiating cable (Figs 1-8) that is manufactured easily at lower cost, has a reduction in diameter, while also preventing unwanted leakage of electromagnetic wave energy (Paragraph 22).
However, Suzuki doesn’t necessarily disclose the tape being made of an inorganic and/or semi-organic polymers (claim 12), nor the inorganic and/or semi-organic polymers comprise silicon-nitrogen, boron-nitrogen, and/or phosphorous-nitrogen monomers (claim 13), nor the tape comprising at least one of natural fiber, clay, silica, titania, carbon nanotubes, polyhedral silsesquioxanes, or layered double hydroxides (claim 14), nor the tape being configured to reduce an amount of at least one of the jacket or the dielectric consumed in fire conditions, and the reduced amount of the at least one of the jacket or the dielectric causes at least one of reduced smoke generation, ambient temperature, or flame travel in the fire conditions (claim 35).
Rampalli teaches a radiating cable (Fig 1), which greatly reduces the amount of toxic fumes and corrosive gases produced in a fire (Col 1, lines 30-36), while having superior electrical properties, such as low attenuation (Col 1, lines 37-40), and can be efficiently and economically manufactured (Col 1, lines 45-49). Specifically, with respect to claims 12-14 & 35, Rampalli teaches a coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) comprising a plurality of slots (4), wherein the dielectric (2) is disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively), a tape layer (5A & 5B) disposed over the second conductor (3), and a jacket layer (6), wherein the tape layer (5A & B) may be made of FIROX® (Col 3, lines 35-38), which comprises an inorganic polymer (i.e. silicone) embedded with mica (i.e. silicon nitrogen material of mica (i.e. silica)) and fiberglass (Col 3, lines 15-30), wherein the tape (5A & 5B) reduces an amount of at least one of the jacket (6) and/or the dielectric (2) consumed in fire conditions (Col 3, lines 1-11), and the reduced amount of the at least one of the jacket (6) and/or the dielectric (2) causes at least one of reduced smoke generation (i.e. toxic fumes and gases) in the fire conditions (Col 1, lines 30-37).
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 radiating cable of modified Suzuki to comprise the tape being made of inorganic polymers comprising silicon-nitrogen, such as silica (i.e. mica) configuration as taught by Rampalli because Rampalli teaches that such a configuration provides a radiating cable (Fig 1), which greatly reduces the amount of toxic fumes and corrosive gases produced in a fire (Col 1, lines 30-36), while having superior electrical properties, such as low attenuation (Col 1, lines 37-40), and can be efficiently and economically manufactured (Col 1, lines 45-49) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 26, 29-30, 32-33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Pub Num 2012/0298397) in view of Carroll (Pat Num 5,061,823), as applied to claims 1 & 36 above (herein referred to as modified Suzuki), further in view of in view of Shin et al (Pub Num 2016/0093419, herein referred to as Shin). Modified Suzuki discloses a radiating cable (Figs 1-8) that is manufactured easily at lower cost, has a reduction in diameter, while also preventing unwanted leakage of electromagnetic wave energy (Paragraph 22), as applied to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 26-30, modified Suzuki discloses that the cable (Fig 1) comprises a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) surrounding the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) having a plurality of slots (6), a tape layer (4) surrounding the second conductor (3), wherein a frequency is generated through the slots (6) of the outer conductor (3, Paragraph 34).
However, Suzuki doesn’t necessarily disclose the dielectric has a nominal thickness around the first conductor in a range of 5 to 15 mils (claim 26), nor the dielectric being configured to have a cross shape (claim 29), nor the cross-shaped dielectric comprises at least four fins extending away from the first conductor (claim 30), nor the cable being configured to radiate electromagnetic waves in a frequency range of 75 megahertz (MHz) to 6 gigahertz (GHz) (claims 32 & 40), nor the first conductor is configured to effectuate fifth generation cellular (5G) communication in the frequency range of 75 MHz to 6 GHz through the plurality of slots in the second conductor (claim 33).
Shin teaches a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3), that is inexpensive to manufacture (abstract), while also satisfying electrical characteristics compared to related prior art (Paragraph 3). Specifically, with respect to claims 26 and 29-30, Shin teaches a cable (100, Fig 1) comprises a first conductor (110), a dielectric (130) surrounding the first conductor (110), a second conductor (150) surrounding the dielectric (130), and a jacket (170) surrounding the second conductor (150), wherein the dielectric (130) has a nominal thickness around the first conductor (110) is configured to have a cross shape comprising at least four fins (133) extending away from the first conductor (110, Fig 1). With respect to claims 32-33 & 40, Shin teaches that the cable (100) has a first conductor (110), which is capable of effectuates fifth generation cellular (5G) communication in the frequency range of 75 MHz to 6 GHz (i.e. 2 GHz, Paragraph 36).
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 radiating cable of modified Suzuki to comprise the dielectric configuration as taught by Shin because Shin teaches that such a configuration provides a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3), that is inexpensive to manufacture (abstract), while also satisfying electrical characteristics compared to related prior art (Paragraph 3) and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
With respect to claim 26, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dielectric of modified Suzuki to comprise the dielectric having a nominal thickness around the first conductor in a range of 5 to 15 mils, 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) 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (Pub Num 2012/0298397) in view of Carroll (Pat Num 5,061,823), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Suzuki), further in view of Tuuanaen et al (Pat Num 6,130,385, herein referred to as Tuuanaen). Modified Suzuki discloses a radiating cable (Figs 1-8) that is manufactured easily at lower cost, has a reduction in diameter, while also preventing unwanted leakage of electromagnetic wave energy (Paragraph 22).
However, Suzuki doesn’t necessarily disclose the dielectric is configured to have a star shape (claim 27), nor the star shaped dielectric comprises at least five fins extending away from the first conductor (claim 28).
Tuunanen teaches a coaxial cable (Figs 1-2), that may function as a radiating cable (Col 9, lines 7-10), that has an dielectric exhibiting low electrical dissipation factor combined with good melt strength (Col 5, lines 40-41). Specifically, with respect to claims 27-28, Tuunanen teaches a cable (Fig 1) comprises a first conductor (1), a dielectric (3) surrounding the first conductor (1), a second conductor (4) surrounding the dielectric (3), and a jacket (5) surrounding the second conductor (4), wherein the dielectric (3) is configured to have a star shape comprising at least five fins extending away from the first conductor (1, Fig 2A).
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 radiating cable of modified Suzuki to comprise the dielectric configuration as taught by Tuunanen because Tuunanen teaches that such a configuration provides a coaxial cable (Figs 1-2), that may function as a radiating cable (Col 9, lines 7-10), that has an dielectric exhibiting low electrical dissipation factor combined with good melt strength (Col 5, lines 40-41) and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Suzuki nor Carroll disclose the claim language of claim 36 and therefore cannot render the claimed invention obvious.
B) Suzuki nor Carroll disclose the claim language of claim 37, specifically, a tape disposed over the second conductor and the plurality of slots, wherein the tape comprises at least one polyimide and has a thickness of 0.5 to 2.0 mils and therefore cannot render the claimed invention obvious.
With respect to arguments A & B, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, it must be submitted that Suzuki discloses a radiating coaxial cable (Fig 1) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3) comprising a plurality of slots (6), wherein the dielectric (2) being disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively) and a tape (4) disposed over the second conductor (3) configured to seal the plurality of slots (6, Paragraph 39, Fig 4) and providing a continuous seal over the second conductor (3, ie tape is attached to the second conductor, Paragraph 49), wherein the tape (4) having a thickness in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 mils (i.e. 5µm =0.197mil to 36 µm=1.42mil, which is within the claimed range, Paragraph 39).
Secondly, while the examiner agreed that such an amendment of the “the tape being made of a polyimide material” overcame the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection, clearly the combination of Suzuki in view of Carrol teaches the claimed limitations of a tape disposed over the second conductor and the plurality of slots, wherein the tape comprises at least one polyimide, as disclosed previously with respect to previously submitted claim 36 and now newly submitted claims 36-37. Specifically, Suzuki doesn’t disclose the tape layer being made of polyimide. However, the examiner has relied upon Carroll for its teachings of a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a layer surrounding the outer conductor for the purpose of providing environmental protection to the inner conductor (Col 3, lines 67-68), while also reducing the diameter and weight of the overall cable and providing crush, kinking, and torque resistance (Col 4, lines 12-23). Specifically, with respect to claims 1, 36 and 37, Carroll teaches a coaxial cable (Fig 2) comprising a first conductor (1), a dielectric (2) disposed over the first conductor (1), a second conductor (3), wherein the dielectric (2) is disposed between the first and second conductors (1 & 3, respectively), a tape layer (5) disposed over the second conductor (3), wherein the tape layer may be made of a polyimide tape layer (Col 3, lines 39-47).
In light of the above teaching, 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 radiating cable of Suzuki to comprise the tape being made of a polyimide material configuration as taught by Carroll because Carroll teaches that such a configuration provides a coaxial cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a layer surrounding the outer conductor for the purpose of providing environmental protection to the inner conductor (Col 3, lines 67-68), while also reducing the diameter and weight of the overall cable and providing crush, kinking, and torque resistance (Col 4, lines 12-23) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, based on the above statements, the examiner respectfully submits 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
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights