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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 was filed on the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6814269 in view of Brueckner et al. US20170323706.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘269 discloses a shielded electrically conductive path, comprising: a shielded cable (fig. 5; 1) formed such that a shield layer (fig. 5; 16) surrounding a core wire (fig. 5; 15) is surrounded by a sheath (fig. 5; 17); a sleeve (fig. 6; 12) arranged to surround an inner periphery (fig. 7; inside of 16) of the shield layer (16) extending forward in an axial direction (parallel direction to 1) of the shielded cable (1) from a front end (fig. 7; 17A) of the sheath (17); and a butting portion (fig. 6; 31) extending rearward (fig. 6; 35 extends rearward) in the axial direction (parallel direction to 1) from a rear end (fig. 6; 30B) of the sleeve (12), the butting portion (31) contacting the front end (17A) of the sheath (17).
JP ‘269 does not disclose the sleeve surrounding an outer periphery of the shield layer.
However, Brueckner teaches the sleeve (fig. 2; 6) surrounding an outer periphery (fig. 2; outer surface of 3.1 before the fold) of the shield layer (fig. 2; 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sleeve surrounding an outer periphery of the shield layer as suggested by Brueckner for the benefit of providing an improved grounding path to optimize EMI suppression.
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘269 modified by Brueckner has been discussed above. JP ‘269 discloses wherein a dimension of a rear end (fig. 6; bend connecting 35 and 36) of the butting portion (31) is larger (thicker in a radial direction of 1) than a dimension (thickness) of a front end part (35) of the butting portion (21) in a radial direction (radial direction of 1) of the shielded cable (1).
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘269 modified by Brueckner has been discussed above. JP ‘269 discloses wherein a rear end part (36) of the butting portion (31) is bent outward in the radial direction (36 is bent outward and folded from 35).
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘269 modified by Brueckner has been discussed above. JP ‘269 discloses wherein a rear end part (36) of the butting portion (31) is formed with a curved surface (surface of bend that connects 35 and 36) folded outward in the radial direction (radial direction of 1) and forward and curved rearward (the bending between 35 and 36 is convex toward 17, which is rearward).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 5, the prior art of record failed to disclose, teach, provide or suggest a facing surface of the sleeve facing the outer periphery of the shield layer and a facing surface of the butting portion facing the outer periphery of the shield layer are continuous and flush with each other in the axial direction combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 6, the prior art of record failed to disclose, teach, provide or suggest a radius of curvature in a rear end part of the butting portion is smaller than a radius of curvature of the sleeve when the butting portion is viewed from the axial direction combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 7, the prior art of record failed to disclose, teach, provide or suggest an outer conductor for surrounding an outer periphery of a front end part of the sheath, an outer periphery of the sleeve and an outer periphery of the butting portion, wherein: a part surrounding a separation region formed between the sheath and the sleeve, out of the outer conductor, is formed with a recess recessed radially inward of the shielded cable, and a formation region of the recess in a circumferential direction of the shielded cable is a region except an arranged part of the butting portion in the separation region combined with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights