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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 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 1, line 6, “the element wire” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 10, “the child stranded wire” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-5 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (9748020) in view of Sugimura et al. (9849531).
Oshima et al. discloses a stranded wire (1) having a plurality of child stranded wires (11a, 11b) stranded together, the child stranded wires each having the same structure in which a plurality of element wires (11c) having a circular cross section of the same diameter perpendicular to a longitudinal direction are stranded together, wherein the child stranded wire has a strand pitch at least 40 times the diameter of a circle circumscribing the child stranded wire (col. 2 and Table 1, 33 ÷ 0.7 = 47), and wherein the stranded wire has a strand pitch between 5 and 20 times the diameter of a circle circumscribing the stranded wire (Fig. 3 and Table 1, diameter of stranded wire = 0.7 x 3 =2.1, the strand pitch = 30, therefore, 30 ÷ 2.1 = 14) (re-claim 1).
Oshima et al. does not disclose the element wire including a core wire made of steel and a coating layer made of copper or copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire (re-claim 1).
Sugimura et al. discloses an element wire (10) including a core wire (11) made of steel and a coating layer (12) made of copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire (re-claim 1). Sugimura et al. also discloses that the element wire (10) has a diameter between 0.02 mm and 0.09 mm (abstract 30 to 200 µm) (re-claim 2); the steel constituting the core wire has a carbon content between 0.70 mass% and 0.95 mass% (col. 3, lines 20-25) (re-claim 4); in a cross section of the element wire, an area of the coating layer (12) with respect to an area of the element wire is between 20% and 80% (col. 3, lines 51-52) (re-claim 5); and the coating layer is a plated layer (re-claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the element wire (10) taught by Sugimura et al. for the element wires (11c) of Oshima et al. since such element wire has reduced diameter and increased strength (col. 1, lines 28-39).
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. in view of Dubernet et al. (3676576).
Oshima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, see the above rejection with respect to claim 1.
Oshima et al. does not disclose the element wire including a core wire made of steel and a coating layer made of copper or copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire (re-claim 1).
Dubernet et al. discloses an element wire (copper-coated steel) including a core wire made of steel and a coating layer made of copper or copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire (col. 2, lines 23-24) (re-claim 1). Dubernet et al. also discloses that the core wire has a tensile strength between 1800 MPa and 4500 MPa (col. 3, Ex. 1, 250 to 300 kg/mm2 = 2452 to 2942 MPa) (re-claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the element wire (copper-coated steel wire) taught by Dubernet et al. for the element wires (11c) of Oshima et al. to improve the stranded wire strength.
Re-claim 9, Oshima et al., as modified, discloses an insulated electric wire comprising the stranded wire according to claim 1 and an insulating layer (20) covering an outer periphery of the stranded wire.
Re-claim 11, Oshima et al., as modified, does not disclose a shielding portion made of a conductor arranged to surround an outer periphery of the insulated electric wire and an outer sheath layer made of an insulator arranged to surround an outer periphery of the shielding portion. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to surround the insulated electric wire (1) of Oshima et al. with a shielding portion made of a conductor and an outer sheath layer made of an insulator, respectively to form a coaxial cable since such configuration is well-known in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. in view of Sugimura et al. and Dubernet et al.
Oshima et al. discloses a stranded wire (1) having a plurality of child stranded wires (11a, 11b) stranded together, the child stranded wires each having the same structure in which a plurality of element wires (11c) having a circular cross section of the same diameter perpendicular to a longitudinal direction are stranded together, wherein the child stranded wire has a strand pitch at least 40 times the diameter of a circle circumscribing the child stranded wire (col. 2 and Table 1, 33 ÷ 0.7 = 47), wherein the stranded wire has a strand pitch between 5 and 20 times the diameter of a circle circumscribing the stranded wire (Fig. 3 and Table 1, diameter of stranded wire = 0.7 x 3 =2.1, the strand pitch = 30, therefore, 30 ÷ 2.1 = 14), wherein in a cross section of the stranded wire, the plurality of child stranded wire includes a central child stranded wire (11a) arranged at a center, and six first peripheral child stranded wires (11b) arranged in contact with the central child stranded wire, and wherein the child stranded wires (11a, 11b) each including at least two and not more than 20 of the element wires.
Oshima et al. does not disclose the element wire including a core wire made of steel and a coating layer made of copper or copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire, wherein the core wire has a diameter between 0.02 mm and 0.09 mm; the core wire has a tensile strength between 1800 MPa and 4500 MPa; the steel constituting the core wire has a carbon content between 0.70 mass% and 0.95 mass%; in a cross section of the element wire, an area of the coating layer with respect to an area of the element wire is between 20% and 80%.
Sugimura et al. discloses an element wire (10) including a core wire (11) made of steel and a coating layer (12) made of copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire, wherein the core wire (11) has a diameter between 0.02 mm and 0.09 mm (col. 3, wire 10 having an outer diameter of 30 to 200 µm = 0.03 to 0.2 mm, coating layer 12 having a thickness of 0.003 to 0.008 mm); the steel constituting the core wire (11) has a carbon content between 0.70 mass% and 0.95 mass% (col. 3, lines 20-25); in a cross section of the element wire, an area of the coating layer (12) with respect to an area of the element wire is between 20% and 80% (col. 3, lines 51-52).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the element wire (10) taught by Sugimura et al. for the element wires (11c) of Oshima et al. since such element wire has reduced diameter and increased strength (col. 1, lines 28-39).
Dubernet et al. discloses an element wire (copper-coated steel) including a core wire made of steel and a coating layer made of copper or copper alloy covering a surface of the core wire (col. 2, lines 23-24). Dubernet et al. also discloses that the core wire has a tensile strength between 1800 MPa and 4500 MPa (col. 3, Ex. 1, 250 to 300 kg/mm2 = 2452 to 2942 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the core wire in the modified stranded wire of Oshima et al. with the tensile strength taught by Dubernet et al. to meet the required strength.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. in view of Sugimura et al., Dubernet et al., and Funahashi et al. (6023026).
Oshima et al., Sugimura et al., and Dubernet et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, see the above rejection with respect to claim 6.
Oshima et al., as modified, does not disclose an additional of twelve second peripheral child stranded wires arranged in contact with the six first peripheral child stranded wires.
Funahashi et al. discloses a stranded wire comprising a plurality of child stranded wires including a central child stranded wire arranged at the center, six first child stranded wires arranged in contact with the central child stranded wire, and twelve second child stranded wires arranged in contact with the six first child stranded wires.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Funahashi et al. in the modified stranded wire of Oshima et al. by arranging an additional of twelve second child stranded wire in contact with the six first child stranded wires to increase the transmission capacity of the stranded wire.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. in view of Dubernet et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (2021/0151221).
Oshima et al., as modified, discloses an insulated stranded wire according to claim 1. Oshima et al. does not disclose a plurality of said insulated stranded wires being stranded together to form a core, the core being surrounded by a protective layer forming an insulated electric wire, a shielding portion made of a conductor surrounding the insulated electric wire, and an outer sheath made of an insulator surrounding the shielding portion. Huang et al. discloses a cable (1) comprising an insulated electric wire comprising a core (3) having a plurality of insulated stranded wires (2) stranded together, a protective layer (4) surrounding the core, a shielding portion (5) made of a conductor surrounding the insulated electric wire, and an outer sheath (6) made of an insulator surrounding the shielding portion. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of the modified insulated stranded wires of Oshima et al.; to strand them together to form a core; to surround the core with a protective layer to form an insulated electric wire; to surround the insulated electric wire with a shielding portion made of a conductor; and to surround the shielding portion with an outer sheath made of an insulator to form a multicore cable, as taught by Funahashi et al., for multiple transmission purposes.
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
Prosecution Insights