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
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozawa et al. (2014/0367141) in view of McNutt (12580098).
Tozawa et al. discloses a shielded electrical wire (Fig. 1B) comprising an inner conductor (11); an insulator (12’) covering the inner conductor; a shield conductor (13) covering the insulator; and an outer sheath (14) covering the shield conductor, wherein a cross-sectional area of the inner conductor is 3 mm2 to 160 mm2 ([0007]-[0008]), wherein the insulator contains polyolefin as a resin, and wherein the outer sheath is cross-linked ([0021]) (re-claim 1). Tozawa et al. also discloses the insulator containing a flame retardant ([0019]) (re-claim 2); the polyolefin of the insulator being cross-linked ([0021]) (re-claim 4); in a cross-section perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cable, the insulator and the outer sheath being disposed such that an outer circumference of the insulator and an outer circumference of the outer sheath form concentric circles (re-claim 5); and the insulator having a thickness of 0.4 mm or more (Table 2) (re-claim 6).
Tozawa et al. does not disclose the outer sheath containing polyurethane as a resin and a flame retardant (re-claims 1 and 2).
McNutt discloses a shielded electrical wire (100) comprising an inner conductor (115), an insulator (125), and an outer sheath (130), wherein the outer sheath contains polyurethane as a resin and a flame retardant (col. 12, lines 28-29, flame retardant polyurethane, and lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use flame retardant polyurethane as taught by McNutt for the outer sheath of Tozawa et al. to meet the required protection of the outer sheath since polyurethane is known for its highly tear and abrasion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08-05-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tozawa does not disclose or suggest the feature of “wherein the polyurethane of the outer sheath is cross-linked” and that McNutt merely lists “polyurethane” and “flame retardant polyurethane,” however, McNutt does not disclose the polyurethane jacket being cross-linked.
Examiner would disagree. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, if Tozawa were disclosed the cross-linked outer sheath being a polyurethane cross-linked outer sheath, Tozawa would be qualified as 102 reference to at least claim 1.
Both Tozawa and McNutt disclose coaxial cable comprising an outer sheath. The fact that McNutt discloses a flame retardant polyurethane being used for the outer sheath, one skilled in the art would have motivated to use the flame retardant polyurethane taught by McNutt for the outer sheath of Tozawa forming a cross-linked, flame retardant polyurethane outer sheath.
Applicant argues that the applicant’s data demonstrates that cross-linking the polyurethane outer sheath as claimed in claim 1 would provide an unexpected and advantageous improvement in vibration resistance over the shielded wire of Tozawa.
Examiner would disagree. It has been held that the examiner's burden of establishing prima facie obviousness is satisfied by a showing of structural similarity between the claims and prior art; it does not require a showing of some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the structurally similar subject matter will have the same or a similar utility as that discovered by the applicant. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ 2d 1897.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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