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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 15, 19-20, 42, 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20210398710) in view of Li et al. (CN 205751662 U).
As to claim 1, Shimizu et al.’s figure 4 shows a flexible signal transmission line comprising: a core (10) comprising a dielectric material (11), the core defining an outer surface; a first electrical shield (30) that surrounds the outer surface of the core; an outer electrically insulative jacket (50). The figure fails to show a spacer disposed between the outer electrically insulative jacket and the first electrical shield. However, Li et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that comprises a space (9) disposed between its outer electrically insulative jacket (8) and first electrical shield (3,4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a spacer between Shimizu et al.’s outer electrically insulative jacket and first electrical shield for the purpose of enhancing the cable durability. The modified Shimizu et al.’s figure further shows that the spacer is configured to apply a compressive force to the first electrical shield toward the core.
As to claim 2, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the spacer defines a first surface that faces the first electrical shield, and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second surface is convex.
As to claim 6, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the shield defines an inner surface that faces the core and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, and the spacer abuts the outer surface of the shield.
As to claim 8, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows a second electrical shield (20) disposed between the spacer and the outer electrically insulative jacket.
As to claim 9, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that an entirety of the spacer that extends from the first electrical shield to the second electrical shield is a monolithic structure. Furthermore, selecting the structure as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.04, IV.
As to claim 10, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the core is elongate along a central axis, and a void is defined between an outer surface of the first shield and an inner surface of the second electrical shield, and the spacer is disposed in the void on one side of the central axis.
As to claim 15, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the spacer deforms to fill in all or some of the void.
As to claim 19, Li et al.’s teaches that the filter is “non-hygroscopic filling material” and “the filler filled with non-absorbent material”. Selecting the spacer to be electrically insulative is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 20, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the void comprises first and second voids, and the spacer comprises first and second spacers disposed in the first and second voids, respectively, that are disposed on opposite sides of the central axis.
As to claim 42, coaxial electrical cable comprising a single electrical signal conductor that is surrounded by the dielectric material is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a single electrical signal conductor that is surrounded by the dielectric material for Shimizu et al.’s core for the purpose of saving cost and providing desired transmission cable.
As to claims 46-47, selecting the occupied space for the spacers as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20210398710) in view of Li et al. (CN 205751662 U) and Kobayashi (US 20230141502).
As to claim 3, Shimizu et al.’s figure fails to show that the first surface of the spacer is substantially flat. However, Kobayashi’s figures 2 or 6 shows a similar device (figure 5) that its cable core 101 or 60 having flat surface(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to selecting Kobayashi’s cable core for Shimizu et al.’s cable core for the purpose of achieving desired shape and ensuring optimum performance, MPEP 2144.04, IV.
As to claim 4, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the core and the first electrical shield are racetrack shaped (see Kobayashi’s figures).
As to claim 43, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the signal transmission line is a twinaxial electrical cable comprising first and second electrical signal conductors that are surrounded by the dielectric material, see Kobayashi’s figures.
Claim(s) 5-10, 15, 19,20, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20210398710) in view of Li et al. (CN 205751662 U), Kobayashi (US 20230141502) and Kodama et al.’s (US 9892820).
As to claim 5, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure fails to show that the shield comprises select wrappings and adjacent wrappings disposed between the select wrappings and the core. However, Kodama et al.’s figures 2-5 shows a similar cable core that its shield (3, 4) comprises select wrappings and adjacent wrappings disposed between the select wrappings and the core. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Kodama et al.’s shield for Shimizu et al.’s shield for the purpose of improving the cable performance, see Kodama et al.’s col. 2, lines 26-35. The modified Shimizu et al.’s figure further shows that the spacer contacts the select wrappings to apply a force to the select wrappings against the adjacent wrappings.
As to claim 6, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the shield defines an inner surface that faces the core and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, and the spacer abuts the outer surface of the shield.
As to claim 7, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the shield comprises a metal.
As to claim 8, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows a second electrical shield (Shimizu’s 20, Li’s 7, Kobayashi’s 14 or Kodama’s 12) disposed between the spacer and the outer electrically insulative jacket.
As to claim 9, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that an entirety of the spacer that extends from the first electrical shield to the second electrical shield is a monolithic structure. Furthermore, selecting the structure as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.04, IV.
As to claim 10, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the core is elongate along a central axis, and a void is defined between an outer surface of the first shield and an inner surface of the second electrical shield, and the spacer is disposed in the void on one side of the central axis.
As to claim 15, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the spacer deforms to fill in all or some of the void.
As to claim 19, Li et al.’s teaches that the filter is “non-hygroscopic filling material” and “the filler filled with non-absorbent material”. Selecting the spacer to be electrically insulative is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 20, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the void comprises first and second voids, and the spacer comprises first and second spacers disposed in the first and second voids, respectively, that are disposed on opposite sides of the central axis.
As to claim 23, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the core is a substantially rectangular core (see Kobayashi’s figure 6) having an outer core surface that defines a first pair of surfaces that are substantially linear in cross-section and on opposite sides of the central axis with respect to the second direction, and a second pair of surfaces that are substantially linear in cross-section and on opposite sides of the central axis with respect to the first direction, and wherein the void comprises first and second voids opposite each other along the second direction, and third and fourth voids opposite each other along the first direction (it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further add spacers in other voids for the purpose enhancing the device durability.
As to claim 25, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the spacer comprises a first spacer disposed in the first void, a second spacer disposed in the second void, a third spacer disposed in the third void, and a fourth spacer disposed in the fourth void, and each of the spacers apply a compressive force to the first electrical shield against the core (see the rejection of claim 23).
Claim(s) 28 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20210398710) in view of Li et al. (CN 205751662 U), Kobayashi (US 20230141502), Kodama et al.’s (US 9892820) and Murakami et al. (JP 6343827).
As to claim 28, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure fails to show that the core is a dielectric core comprising only a solid or foamed dielectric material. However, Murakami et al.’s figure 1 shows waveguide that its core 2 comprises only a solid or foamed dielectric material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Murakami et al.’s core for Shimizu et al.’s core for the purpose of saving cost and providing high capacity high speed communication.
As to claim 36, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows a waveguide.
Claim(s) 37, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20210398710) in view of Li et al. (CN 205751662 U), Kobayashi (US 20230141502), Kodama et al.’s (US 9892820) and Morgan et al. (US 20170170538).
As to claim 37, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure fails to show that the core is a hollow core comprising an outer wall that defines a hollow channel, and the hollow channel contains a gas. However, Morgan et al.’s figure 1 shows a waveguide comprises hollow core (110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Morgan et al.’s core for Shimizu et al.’s core for the purpose of reducing size and sensitivity to external influences. The modified Shimizu et al.’s figure further shows that the hollow channel contains a gas (Morgan et al.’s ¶0026 teaches that “The core material in the core region 112 may be in the solid phase or the gas phase”).
As to claim 39, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the waveguide is devoid of supports in the hollow channel.
As to claim 40, the modified Shimizu et al.’s figure shows that the core is a semi-hollow core defining first and second hollow channels (since Shimizu’s device has two channels, see Morgan et al.’s figure 1) that each contain a gas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843