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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detain et al (Pub Num 2007/0187134, herein referred to as Detain) in view of Hitoshi et al (JP Pat Num 2004-014337, herein referred to as Hitoshi). Detain discloses a multi-core cable (Figs 1-12) having high mechanical strength, low electric resistance, and high heat resistance (Paragraph 147). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Detain discloses a multicore cable (30, Fig 9) comprising a core (located inside of 33) formed by twisting a plurality of coated electric wires (20, Paragraph 221) and an outer sheath (37) disposed outside the core (located inside of 33), wherein a thickness of the outer sheath (37) may be made of PFA (Paragraph 221) and may be is 0.03 mm or less (i.e. 0.03 mm, Paragraph 303), wherein each of the plurality of coated electric wires (20, Figs 7-8) includes a conductor (2a) and an insulator (5a) covering the conductor (2a), wherein a thickness of the insulator of 5 μm or less (Paragraph 205, not more than 0.07 mm=70 μm, i.e. x<70 μm completely encompasses 5 μm or less), wherein the outer diameter of the conductor (2a) may be 0.032 or less (i.e. 0.023 mm, Paragraph 301). With respect to claim 4, Detain discloses that the multi-core cable (30, Fig 9) further comprises a metal shield layer (35) between the core (located inside of 33) and the outer sheath (37, Fig 9).
However, Detain doesn’t necessarily disclose the insulator being made of one or more selected from polyimide and polyamide-imide as a resin material (Claim 1).
Hitoshi teaches a multicore cable (Figs 1-4) capable of preventing an electrical short circuit, allows easy cable connection at a low cost, and has excellent flexibility (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Hitoshi teaches a multi-core cable (12, Fig 1) comprising a core (located inside of 14) forming by twisting a plurality of insulated electric wires (2, Paragraph 27), and an outer sheath (16) disposed outside the core (located inside of 14), wherein each of the plurality of coated electrical wires (2) includes a conductor (3) and an insulator (4) covering the conductor (3), wherein the insulating layer (4) may be made of a thermosetting resin, such as PFA or polyimide (Paragraph 21).
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 Detain to comprise the insulator material being made of polyimide rather than PFA configuration as taught by Hitoshi because Hitoshi teaches that such a configuration provides a multicore cable (Figs 1-4) capable of preventing an electrical short circuit, allows easy cable connection at a low cost, and has excellent flexibility (abstract) 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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detain (Pub Num 2007/0187134) in view of Hitoshi (JP Pat Num 2004-014337), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Detain), further in view of Miller et al (Pub Num 2014/0102748, herein referred to as Miller). Modified Detain discloses a multi-core cable (Figs 1-12) having high mechanical strength, low electric resistance, and high heat resistance (Paragraph 147). Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Detain discloses the plurality of coated electric wires (20, Paragraph 221) includes a conductor (2a), which may be made of a copper alloy (Paragraph 201)
However, modified Detain doesn’t necessarily disclose the conductor including a central portion containing iron and an outer peripheral portion containing copper, the outer peripheral portion being disposed outside the central portion (claim 3).
Miller teaches a coated electrical wire (100, Fig 1) that is ultra flexible conductor that may be folded multiple times within a low volume area without being damaged (Paragraph 4). Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Miller teaches a coated electrical wire (100) including a conductor (105), an insulator surrounding the conductor (110), wherein the conductor (105) may include a central portion containing iron and an outer peripheral portion containing copper, the outer peripheral portion being disposed outside the central portion (i.e. copper plated iron conductive metal, Paragraph 18).
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 modified Detain to comprise the conductive material being made a copper plated iron conductive configuration as taught by Miller because Miller teaches that such a configuration provides a coated electrical wire (100, Fig 1) that is ultra flexible conductor that may be folded multiple times within a low volume area without being damaged (Paragraph 4). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Detain doesn’t teach the outer diameter of the conductor being 0.032 mm or less but rather teaches the wire of the outer conductor being less than 0.032 mm and therefore cannot establish a proper prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested.
With respect to argument A, the examiner respectfully traverses. While the applicant is correct in stating the reference to the diameter of the conductor in Paragraph 303 is referring to the conductors utilized in the outer conductor, Detain teaches that the inner conductor (2a) is also has an outer diameter of less than 0.032mm. Specifically, in Paragraph 301, Detain teaches that the inner conductor is made by seven wires being stranded together to form a overall wire diameter of 0.023 mm. Paragraph 174 also states that the inner conductor (2) is made by seven extra fine wires twisted together to form an overall wire diameter of 0.010-0.025 mm, Paragraph 175 states that the seven wires has an overall wire diameter of 0.025 mm, Paragraph 176 states that the seven wires having an overall diameter of 0.023. All of the paragraph 173-181 all teach the overall diameter being less than 0.032 mm.
In light of the above, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 is proper and just.
Conclusion
Based on the correction of the typo in the previous rejection, this action is a Non-Final Rejection.
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
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights