CTNF 18/791,872 CTNF 72661 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8-10, 12, 14, and 15 are 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. Claim 8, line 2, “one conductive bending tape” is unclear to how this relates to “a conductive bending tape” cited in claim 1. Claim 8, line 2, “the plurality of conductive bending tapes” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 12, “the first impedance matching sheet” and “the second impedance matching sheet” lack antecedent basis. Claim 14, line 2, “the signal transmission line” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 14, line 4, “the connector” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 15, line 7, “the signal transfer line” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 9 and 10 are included in this rejection because of dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 8, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Sugiyama (2015/0021063) . Sugiyama discloses a data transmission cable comprising: a signal transfer line (2); an impedance matching sheet (4) configured to cover the signal transfer line; and, a conductive bending tape (7) wound around the impedance matching sheet, wherein the conductive bending tape is disposed to be wound on an outer surface of the impedance matching sheet in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the impedance matching sheet (Figs 1 & 3). Sugiyama also discloses that one conductive bending tape is disposed according to the length of the impedance matching sheet when the length of the impedance matching sheet is the minimum length (Figs 1 & 3) (re-claim 8); the minimum length of the impedance matching sheet is the noise antenna length in which the impedance matching sheet is operated as a noise antenna (shield), and the noise antenna length is varied according to the wavelength corresponding to the signal frequency of the data transmitted through the signal transfer line (re-claim 9); the length of the conductive bending tape (7) is longer than the sum of the length of the width of the upper surface and the length of the width of the lower surface of the impedance matching sheet (Figs 1 & 3) (re-claim 11); the conductive bending tape is grounded by directly contacting a grounding part (6) (re-claim 13) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Murakami et al. (6528731) . Sugiyama discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the impedance matching sheet including a first impedance matching sheet disposed above the signal transfer line and a second impedance matching sheet disposed below the signal transfer line. Murakami et al. (Fig. 6) discloses a data transmission cable comprising a signal transfer line (10), a first impedance matching sheet (31) disposed above the signal transfer line and a second impedance matching sheet (32) disposed below the signal transfer line. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the impedance matching sheet (4) of Sugiyama to comprise a first impedance matching sheet disposed above the signal transfer line and a second impedance matching sheet disposed below the signal transfer line to meet the specific use the resulting cable since an impedance matching sheet (a shield) can be formed as one-piece sheet or two-piece sheet as taught by Murakami et al. (Figs 3 & 6). Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177, 179. It is noted that in the modified cable of Sugiyama, the modified first and second impedance matching sheets are electrically connected to each other through the conductive bending tape; and the minimum length of the conductive bending tape is the total length of all of them summed the length of the width of the first impedance matching sheet, the length of the width of the second impedance matching sheet, and the length of the gap between the outer surface of the first impedance matching sheet and the outer surface of the second impedance matching sheet when the impedance matching sheet includes a first impedance matching sheet disposed above the signal transfer line and a second impedance matching sheet disposed below the signal transfer line . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Sakurai et al. (2016/0338197) . Claim 14 additionally recites connectors placed at both ends of the signal transmission line and configured to electrically connecting the signal line to an external device, wherein the connector is connected to a main ground line to ground the impedance matching sheet. Sakurai et al. discloses a data transmission cable (200) comprising connectors (111, 121) placed at both ends of the signal transmission line and configured to electrically connecting the signal line to an external device (110, 120), wherein the connector is connected to a main ground line (not shown). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place connectors at both ends of the signal transmission line of Sugiyama to electrically connecting the signal line to an external device, with the connector connected to a main ground line, as taught by Sakurai et al. to provide connection means for the cable. It is noted that in the modified cable of Sugiyama, the bending tape and the impedance matching tape are grounded. Re-claim 15, Sugiyama discloses a data transmission cable including an impedance matching sheet (4) configured to cover the signal transfer line, and a conductive bending tape (7) wound on an outer surface of the impedance matching sheet in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the impedance matching sheet. Sugiyama does not disclose the cable being used in a display apparatus which is comprised of a display unit and a driving control unit, wherein the cable is connected between a first circuit part and a second circuit part of a driving control unit to transfer a data signal. Sakurai et al. discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a display unit ([0029]) configured to display an image; a driving control unit configured to control driving of the display unit; and a data transmission cable (200) connected between a first circuit part (110) and a second circuit part (120) of a driving control unit to transfer a data signal. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the data transmission cable of Sugiyama for connecting between a first circuit part and a second circuit part of a driving control unit to transfer a data signal, as taught by Sakurai et al., since the data transmission cable of Sugiyama has improved physical and electrical properties ([0020]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 AIA Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm. 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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 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 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. /CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 2 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 3 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 5 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 6 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 7 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/791,872 Page 8 Art Unit: 2841
Prosecution Insights