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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/KR2022/010187, being filed on July 13, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/876,565, filed on December 18, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 18, 2024 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 & 2 lack the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductor and insulative materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
In lines 7-8, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 1-2, the abstract recites the terms “The present disclosure relates to a …….and more specifically, relates to a……”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should remove the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al (Pub Num 2010/0212935, herein referred to as Cho). Cho discloses a coaxial cable (Figs 1-6), which is capable of being used for nuclear power plants (Paragraph 2), and has low signal loss for transmitting the signal to long distance, by improved foaming rate and reduced dielectric constant of insulator (Paragraph 18), thereby avoiding undesired uniformity and return loss of the cable (Paragraph 19). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Cho discloses a coaxial cable (Fig 5) comprising an inner conductor (21) arranged at a center of a cable (Fig 5), an insulating layer (23) arranged in a form of surrounding an outer periphery of the inner conductor (21), and formed of a foaming material forming many porous cells (Paragraph 59), and a sheath layer (27) arranged in a form of surrounding an outer periphery of the insulating layer (23), wherein activation energy of the insulating layer (23) is within a range of 2.06 eV to 2.84 eV (Paragraph 27, i.e. all of the claimed structure is present and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics as the applicant has stated that the composition of foamed HDPE and LDPE exhibits such characteristics). With respect to claim 2, Cho discloses that the coaxial cable (Fig 5) may have a foam degree of the insulating layer (23) being within the range of 79% to 93% (i.e. 78.9-94.7% incorporates all of the claimed range, Paragraph 24). With respect to claim 3, Cho discloses that the coaxial cable (Fig 5) may have a relative dielectric constant of the insulating layer (23) being within a range of 1.1 to 1.29 (i.e. 1.085-1.291 incorporates all of the claimed range, Paragraph 25). With respect to claim 4, Cho discloses that the coaxial cable (Fig 5) may have a signal propagation speed being within a range of 88% to 96% of a signal propagation speed in air (i.e. 88-96%, incorporates all of the claimed range, Paragraph 26). With respect to claim 5, Cho discloses that the cable (Fig 5) further comprises an inner skin layer (41) interposed between the inner conductor (21) and the insulating layer (23), an outer conductor (25) formed to surround the outer periphery of the insulating layer (23), and an outer skin layer (43) interposed between the insulating layer (23) and the outer conductor (25, Paragraph 100). With respect to claims 6-7, Cho discloses that the insulating layer (23) may be any one of high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and a mixture of the high density polyethylene and the low density polyethylene (Paragraph 102-103), wherein a mixing ratio of the mixture of the high density polyethylene (HDPE) and the low density polyethylene (LDPE) is within a range of 6:4 to 8:2 (i.e. 50-90% HDPE & 10-50% LDPE, incorporates all of the claimed range, for instance 60% HDPE: 40% LDPE is a possibility given the ranges taught, Paragraph 98). With respect to claim 8, Cho discloses that the coaxial cable (Fig 5) may comprise HDPE, which inherently has relative dielectric constant of the high density polyethylene (HDPE) is 1.99 to 2.69 and a melt flow index at 1900C is 6.8 g/10min to 9.2 g/10min (i.e. applicant has stated that HDPE has such characteristics), and LDPE, which inherently has a relative dielectric constant being 1.93 to 2.61, and a melt flow index at 1900C is 5.1 g/10min to 6.9 g/10min (i.e. applicant has stated that HDPE has such characteristics). With respect to claim 9, Cho discloses that the insulation resistance of the cable (Fig 5) is 1 MQ or higher after radiation aging of 70 Mrad is performed on the cable (Fig 5, i.e. Cho teaches all of the claimed structure and all of the claim ranges of the insulator composition of HDPE and LDPE and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics). With respect to claim 10, Cho discloses that the insulation resistance of the cable (Fig 5) after accelerated thermal aging equivalent to at least 20 years is performed on the cable (Fig 5) is 1 MQ or higher (i.e. Cho teaches all of the claimed structure and all of the claim ranges of the insulator composition of HDPE and LDPE and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics). With respect to claim 11, Cho discloses that the insulation resistance of the cable (Fig 5) after a bending test is performed so that the cable (Fig 5) is bent to be smaller than 20 times a diameter of the cable and unfolded again is 1 MQ or higher (i.e. Cho teaches all of the claimed structure and all of the claim ranges of the insulator composition of HDPE and LDPE and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics). With respect to claim 12, Cho discloses that the insulation resistance of the cable (Fig 5) after a voltage of 2.5 kVde is applied for 5 minutes after the cable (Fig 5) is immersed for one hour is 1 MQ or higher (i.e. Cho teaches all of the claimed structure and all of the claim ranges of the insulator composition of HDPE and LDPE and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics). With respect to claim 13, Cho discloses that a relative dielectric constant of the cable (Fig 5) is maintained at a change rate +10% compared to a non-aged cable (Paragraph 25), and a signal propagation speed is maintained at a change rate ±10% compared to the non-aged cable (Paragraph 26, i.e. Cho teaches all of the claimed structure and all of the claim ranges of the insulator composition of HDPE and LDPE and therefore must exhibit the same characteristics).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various coaxial cables and HDPE/LDPE composition for usage with coaxial cables.
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
September 4, 2026
