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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashishita et al (Pub Num 2016/0035459, herein referred to as Hayashishita) in view of Buck et al (Pat Num 5,750,930, herein referred to as Buck). Hayashishita discloses a multi-core cable (Figs 1-3) which has improved mechanical reliability of bendability and twistability (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Hayashishita discloses a multi-core cable (11, Figs 1-3) comprising a plurality of cable units (21, Paragraph 38), a shield layer (23) that covers the plurality of cable units (21, Paragraph 40) and a first sheath (24, Paragraph 41), wherein the plurality of cable units (21) are bundled (Paragraph 39), wherein an outer diameter of the first sheath (24) is 10 mm or less (i.e. 8.3 mm, Paragraph 41), wherein each the plurality of cable unit (21) includes a plurality of core electric wires (12), wherein the core electric wire (12) includes a coaxial wire (Paragraph 38), wherein the coaxial wire (12) includes a center conductor, an insulating layer that covers the center conductor, an outer conductor that covers the insulating layer, and a second sheath that covers the outer conductor (Paragraph 38), wherein the center conductor has a diameter of 0.09 mm or less (i.e. 40AWG =0.081 mm, Paragraph 38), and wherein the shield layer (23) is formed of a metallic braid where metal wires are braided (Paragraph 40) and is formed of a non plated tin copper alloy wire (i.e. silver plated copper alloy wire, Paragraph 40). With respect to claim 2, Hayashishita discloses that the braid density of the metallic braid (23) is 97% or higher (i.e. greater than 95%, Paragraph 50). With respect to claim 4, Xiu-Yu discloses that a diameter of a wire used in the metallic braid (23) may be 0.04-0.10mm (i.e. 0.05 mm or less, Paragraph 40). With respect to claim 6, Hayashishita discloses that a tape layer (22) is provided between the plurality of cable units (21) and the shield layer (23), wherein the plurality of cable units (21) are bundled by the tape layer (22), and wherein a void is formed between the plurality of cable units (Fig 1).
However, Hayashishita doesn’t necessarily disclose a braid angle of the metallic braid being 60 degrees or more and 64 degrees or less (claim 1), nor the plurality of cable units being bundled by a filament (claim 7).
Buck teaches a multi-core cable (Figs 1-3) having increased flexibility (Col 1, lines 42-44), while also having protections from undesired RF and EMI electrical energy (Col 2, line 30). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Buck teaches a multi-core cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a plurality of cable units (one or more 2’s, one or more 4’s, Col 2, lines 15-19), a shield layer (11) that covers the plurality of cable units (one or more 2’s, one or more 4’s, Col 2, lines 15-19) and a first sheath (14), wherein the plurality of cable units (one or more 2’s, one or more 4’s, Col 2, lines 15-19) are bundled (per sheath 6, Col 4, lines 15-17), wherein the plurality of cable unit (one or more 4’s, Col 2, lines 15-19) includes a core electric wire (4), wherein the core electric wire (4) includes a coaxial wire (Fig 1), wherein the coaxial wire (Fig 1) includes a center conductor (not numbered), an insulating layer (not numbered) that covers the center conductor (not numbered), an outer conductor (not numbered) that covers the insulating layer (not numbered), and a second sheath (located at 4) that covers the outer conductor (not numbered), wherein the center conductor (not numbered) may be a 42 AWG wire (Col 2, lines 14-19) which has a diameter of less than 0.09 (i.e. 42 AWG=0.0799 mm), and wherein the shield layer (11) is formed of a metallic braid where metal wires are braided (Col 2, lines 65-68), wherein the braid angle of the metallic braid (11) is 60 degrees or more and 64 degrees or less (i.e. 60 degrees, Col 4, lines 45-46). With respect to claim 7, Buck teaches that the plurality of cables (one or more 2’s, one or more 4’s) may be bundled with a filament (10, Col 2, lines 44-49).
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 multi-core cable of Hayashishita to comprise the conductor and metallic braid configuration as taught by Buck because Buck teaches that such a configuration provides a multi-core cable (Figs 1-3) having increased flexibility (Col 1, lines 42-44), while also having protections from undesired RF and EMI electrical energy (Col 2, line 30).
Hayashishita also doesn’t necessarily disclose the inner diameter of the shield layer being between 7.2-7.8 mm (claim 5).
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the multi-core cable of Hayashishita to comprise the inner diameter of the shield layer being between 7.2-7.8 mm, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Xiu-Yu differs from the recited independent claim 1 because Xiu-Yu discloses that the braided shield is made of tin plated copper alloy wire and therefore fails to teach the braided shield being made of non tin plated copper alloy wire.
B) Buck does not cure the deficiencies of Xiu-Yu cited above and therefore the combination of Xiu-Yu fails to teach the braided shield being made of non tin plated copper alloy wire.
With respect to arguments A & B, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, it must be stated that the examiner admits in the Non Final Rejection presented on April 6, 2026, that the combination of Xiu-Yu and Buck fail to disclose the braided shield being made of non tin plated copper alloy wire (See Pages 6-7 of Non-Final Rejection) but that it would have been obvious to plate the copper alloy wire with other materials such as iron since it is known that iron is commonly utilized as a plating material because of its resistance to corrosion. However, based on the arguments of Non Obviousness by the applicant, the relies on the teachings of Hayashishita to shown that braids made of materials other than tin are known in the art of cables, such as silver.
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, all of which disclose various multi-core cables having braided shields made of materials other than tin plated copper alloy wires.
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 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights