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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification, paragraph [0009], all “ u’’ “ should be change to --µ’’--; and in paragraph [0010], “25 u’’ “ should be changed to --25 µ’’--, and “ 2’’ “, in line 6, should be changed to --2 µ’’--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 3, line 2, “ 20 u’’ “ should be changed to --20 µ’’--; and in claim 4, “ 2’’ “ should be changed to --2 µ’’--. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2023/0069746) in view of Shan et al. (11415275).
Lee et al. discloses a cable (101) comprising a core wire; a shielding layer (20) covering the core wire; an insulating layer (30) covering the shielding layer; and an outer layer (30, [0019], layer 30 covering the shielding layer in a longitudinal wrapping manner and can be multiple layers, Fig. 3) covering the insulating layer (re-claim 1). Lee et al. also discloses that the core wire is arranged as a pair of core wires in contact with each other (re-claim 5); each of the pair of core wires includes an inner conductor and an inner insulating layer covering the inner conductor. It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, extrusion molding, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018) (re-claim 6).
Lee et al. does not disclose the outer layer being an insulating paint (re-claim 1). Shan et al. discloses a cable comprising a core wire (a pair of core wires 111, 112) surrounded by an outer layer (12, col. 5 lines 17-23) which is an insulating paint. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the outer layer (30) of Lee et al. to be an insulating paint layer, as taught by Shan et al., such that the thickness of the outer layer can be determined based on the number of paint layers.
Re-claim 2, Lee et al., as modified, discloses the insulating paint being coated on the insulating layer.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Shan et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kushner et al. (4456785).
Lee et al. and Shan et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the thickness of the insulating paint. Kushner et al. discloses a cable comprising a paint layer which has a thickness of 2 µ’’ (col. 1 lines 19-21, 0.002 inches = 2 microinches).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the paint layer in the modified cable of Lee et al. to have a thickness of 2 µ’’ as taught by Kushner et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (10366811) in view of Shan et al.
Kobayashi discloses a cable (1) comprising a core wire; a shielding layer (4) covering the core wire; an insulating layer (6a) covering the shielding layer; and an outer layer (6b) covering the insulating layer (re-claim 1). Kobayashi also discloses that the core wire is arranged as a pair of core wires in contact with each other (re-claim 5); each of the pair of core wires includes an inner conductor and an inner insulating layer covering the inner conductor. It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, extrusion molding, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018) (re-claim 6); the shielding layer (4) is aluminum-coated PET (col. 4 lines 1-2) (re-claim 7); the metal layer of the shielding layer is arranged outward (re-claim 8); the material of the insulating layer is PET (col. 4 lines 45-46), and the insulating layer wraps the shielding layer in a spiral winding way (re-claim 9); and the shielding layer (4) covers the core wire in a longitudinal covering way (re-claim 10).
Kobayashi does not disclose the outer layer (6b) being an insulating paint (re-claim 1). Shan et al. discloses a cable comprising a core wire (a pair of core wires 111, 112) surrounded by an outer layer (12, col. 5 lines 17-23) which is an insulating paint. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the outer layer (6b) of Kobayashi to be an insulating paint layer, as taught by Shan et al., such that the thickness of the outer layer can be determined based on the number of paint layers.
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