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 filed October 16, 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 3 & 6 lacks the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the 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 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 & 4, respectively, the abstract recites the terms…… “are disclosed” and “are further disclosed”, respectively, which are improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms with 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) 1-2, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nonen et al (Pat Num 8,866,010, herein referred to as Nonen). Nonen discloses a cable (Figs 1-3B), which is easy to manufacture, while eliminating deterioration of transmission characteristics by preventing loosening of a shield tape (Col 2, lines 9-14). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Nonen discloses a cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a cable core (located at 2) including one or more conductors (left 2, right 2) and a shield tape layer (4) comprising two or more strips of shield tape (i.e. tape (4) has a strip forming a metallic layer and a strip forming a resin layer laminated to each other, Col 3, lines 38-44) surrounding the cable core (located at 2), wherein the strips (i.e. tape (4) has a strip forming a metallic layer and a strip forming a resin layer laminated to each other, Col 3, lines 38-44) of shield tape (4) are longitudinally applied (Col 3, lines 32-36) to the cable core (located at 2) such that an overlapping region (4a) extends along a length of the cable (1, Fig 1a), wherein and one strip of splice tape (7) is sized such that the one strip of splice tape (7) doesn’t not extend into the overlapping region (4a) of the shield tape layer (4, Col 4, lines 14-22). With respect to claim 2, Nonen discloses a cable (1, Fig 1), wherein the one strip of splice tape (7) may have a width that is less than a width of each of the two more strips of shield tape (4, Col 4, lines 26-29). With respect to claim 10, Nonen discloses that the cable (1) further comprises a jacket layer (5, Fig 1a). With respect to claim 13-15, Nonen discloses that the shield tape (4) is made of solid aluminum (Col 3, lines 49-51), which is capable of being an alien crosstalk barrier (Col 3, lines 45-48).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonen (Pat Num 8,866,010). Nonen discloses a cable (Figs 1-3B), which is easy to manufacture, while eliminating deterioration of transmission characteristics by preventing loosening of a shield tape (Col 2, lines 9-14), as disclosed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, with respect to claims 3-9, Nonen discloses that the splice tape has a width, length, and thickness, wherein the splice tape may comprise adhesive.
However, Nonen doesn’t necessarily disclose the width of the overlapping region is about 20% to about 25% of the width of each of the two more strips of shield tape (claim 3), nor a width of the one or more strips of splice tape is less than or equal to the width of each of the two more strips of shield tape less two times a width of the overlapping region (claim 4), nor each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a width of about 0.35 inches to about 0.6 inches (claim 5), nor each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a width of about 0.45 inches to about 0.5 inches (claim 6), nor each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a length of about 1 inch to about 8 inches (claim 7), nor each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a thickness less than about 0.003 inches (claim 8), nor each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a thickness of about 0.0005 inches to about 0.003 inches (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the splice tape of Nonen to comprise the width of the overlapping region is about 20% to about 25% of the width of each of the two more strips of shield tape, a width of the one or more strips of splice tape being less than or equal to the width of each of the two more strips of shield tape less two times a width of the overlapping region, specifically, each of the one or more strips of splice tape having a width of about 0.4 inches to about 0.5 inches, wherein each of the one or more strips of splice tape has a length of about 1 inch to about 8 inches and a thickness of about 0.0005 inches to about 0.003 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonen (Pat Num 8,866,010) in view of Kusuma et al (Pub Num 2021/0350956, herein referred to as Kusuma). Nonen discloses a cable (Figs 1-3B), which is easy to manufacture, while eliminating deterioration of transmission characteristics by preventing loosening of a shield tape (Col 2, lines 9-14), as disclosed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, with respect to claims 3-9 & 16, Nonen discloses that the splice tape (7) has a width, length, and thickness (Fig 1A), wherein the splice tape (7) may comprise adhesive (i.e. may comprise some adhesiveness, Col 4, lines 1-7).
However, Nonen doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable is a local area network (LAN) cable (claim 11), nor the cable meeting the requirements of ANSI/TIA 568.2-D (2018) for Category 6A cables (claim 12), nor the adhesive being a high tensile strength tape having a high temperature adhesive (claim 16).
Kusuma teaches a cable (Figs 1-5L) having strict specifications for maximum return loss and crosstalk (Paragraph 36), wherein comprising a shield layer in an effort to reduce the susceptibility of cross talk by increasing delay and delay skew (Paragraph 42), wherein the shield layer may comprise polyester laminated to aluminum foil layer (Paragraph 45). Specifically, with respect to claims 11-12 & 16, Kusuma teaches a cable (100) comprising a cable core (located at 102’s) including one or more conductors (102a-102d) and a shield tape layer (110) comprising two or more strips of shield tape (i.e. tape (110) has a strip forming a metallic layer and a strip forming a resin layer laminated to each other, Paragraph 45) surrounding the cable core (located at 102’s), wherein the strips (i.e. tape (110) has a strip forming a metallic layer and a strip forming a resin layer laminated to each other, Paragraph 45) of shield tape (110) are longitudinally applied (Fig 1B, Paragraph 47) to the cable core (located at 102’s) such that an overlapping region extends along a length of the cable (100, Fig 1b), wherein the shield tape layer (110) contains an high tensile strength adhesive (i.e. polyester (PET), Paragraph wherein the cable (100) is a LAN cable that meets the requirements of ANSI/TIA 568.2-D (2018) for Category 6A cables (Paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the cable of Nonen to be utilized in a LAN cable configuration as taught by Kusuma because Kusuma teaches that such a configuration is known and provides a cable (Figs 1-5L) having strict specifications for maximum return loss and crosstalk (Paragraph 36), wherein comprising a shield layer in an effort to reduce the susceptibility of cross talk by increasing delay and delay skew (Paragraph 42), wherein the shield layer may comprise polyester laminated to aluminum foil layer (Paragraph 45).
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Own Admission of Prior Art (Figs 1-3, Description of Prior Art, herein referred to as AOAPA) in view of Nonen (Pat Num 8,866,010). AOAPA discloses a conventional cable (10, Figs 1-3) comprising a plurality of shielding tapes that are known in the art (Paragraph 16). Specifically, with respect to claim 17, AOAPA discloses a method of forming a cable (Figs 1-3), wherein the method comprises providing a cable (10) comprising a cable core including one or more conductors (not shown), longitudinally wrapping two or more strips of shield tape (22a & 22b) around the cable core (not shown) such that an overlapping region (24) extends along a length of the cable (10), and connecting successive strips of the two or more strips of shield tape (22a & 22b) with one or more tape joints (30), wherein each of the one or more strips of splice tape (30) is sized such that the one or more strips of splice tape (30) extends into the overlapping region (24) of the shield tape layers (22a & 22b). With respect to claim 18, AOAPA teaches that the width of the splice tape (30) that is equal to the shield tape (22a & 22b, Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 20, AOAPA discloses that the method is performed continuously (Figs 1-3).
However, AOAPA doesn’t necessarily disclose the splice tape being sized to not extend into the overlapping region of the shield tape (claim 1), nor the splice tape having a width of 0.45-0.50 inches and a length of about 1-3 inches, wherein the width of the two or more strips of splice tape is less than a width of the shield tape (claim 18), nor the strip of splice tape being positioned centrally relative to the width of the two or more strips of shield tape (claim 19).
Nonen teaches a cable (Figs 1-3B), which is easy to manufacture, while eliminating deterioration of transmission characteristics by preventing loosening of a shield tape (Col 2, lines 9-14). Specifically, with respect to claim 11, Nonen discloses a method of forming a cable (1, Fig 1) comprising providing a cable core (located at 2) including one or more conductors (left 2, right 2) and longitudinally wrapping a shield tape layer (4) comprising two or more strips of shield tape (i.e. tape (4) has a strip forming a metallic layer and a strip forming a resin layer laminated to each other, Col 3, lines 38-44) surrounding the cable core (located at 2), such that an overlapping region (4a) extends along a length of the cable (1, Fig 1a), wherein and one strip of splice tape (7) is sized such that the one strip of splice tape (7) doesn’t not extend into the overlapping region (4a) of the shield tape layer (4, Col 4, lines 14-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the cable of AOAPA to comprise the splice taper configuration as taught by Nonen because Nonen teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-3B), which is easy to manufacture, while eliminating deterioration of transmission characteristics by preventing loosening of a shield tape (Col 2, lines 9-14). With respect to claim 19, Nonen discloses that the one strip of splice tape (7) is positioned centrally relative to the width of the shield tape (4, Col 4, lines 14-22).
With respect to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the splice tape of AOAPA to comprise the splice tape to have a width of 0.45-0.50 inches and a length of about 1-3 inches, wherein the width of the two or more strips of splice tape is less than a width of the shield tape, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 cables having shielding layers and splicing tapes (i.e. bridging tape).
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
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights