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 foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/910,509, filed on October 9, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 9, 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 were received on October 9, 2024. These drawings are approved.
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 1-11, the abstract contains run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN 216311370, herein referred to as Xu) in view of Wang et al (CN 114446529, herein referred to as Wang). Xu discloses a cable (Figs 1-6) having superior transmission performance and lower insertion loss (Paragraph 4). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Xu discloses a cable (Figs 1-2) comprising a pair of core wires (located at left and right 1) each including an inner conductor (1) and an inner insulating layer (2, 3) covering the inner conductor (1), an insulating layer (4) covering the pair of core wires (located at left and right 1), a shielding layer (5) covering the insulating layer (4) and an outer layer (7) covering the shielding layer (5), wherein the inner insulating layer (4) includes a first inner insulating layer (4) covering the inner conductor (5), wherein the first inner insulating layer (2) may be made of solid material (i.e. solid PP, PE, FEP, Paragraph 28), which is capable of being extruded and covers the inner conductor (5), the second inner insulating layer (3) is made of foamed material (i.e. microporous EPTFE tape) and wraps the first inner insulating layer (2) in a winding way (i.e. is a tape layer so it has to be wrapped, Paragraph 28), and wherein the insulating layer (4) includes a first insulating layer (Fig 2) that covers the pair of core wires (located at left and right 1). With respect to claim 2, Xu discloses that the dielectric constant and loss factor of the second inner insulating layer (3, i.e. dielectric of microporous EPTFE is 1.3 and has a known loss factor of 0.0004-0.003, Paragraph 33) are both smaller than the dielectric constant and loss factor of the first inner insulating layer (2, i.e. solid PP, the dielectric constant is 2.1 and has a known loss factor of 0.2, Paragraph 33) and the first insulating layer (4) has an dielectric constant of 1.6 (Paragraph 33). With respect to claim 3, Xu discloses that the first insulating layer (4) is made of foamed material (i.e. microporous EPTFE, Paragraph 28). With respect to claim 5, Xu discloses that the second inner insulating layer (3) may be made of foamed PTFE (i.e. microporous EPTFE, Paragraph 28). With respect to claim 6, Xu disclose that the first inner insulating layer (2) may be selected from the group consisting of PP, PE, foamed PP, and foamed FEP (i.e. solid PP, solid PE, foamed PP, foamed FEP, Paragraph 28). With respect to claim 7, Xu discloses that the first insulating layer (4) may be foamed PTFE, Paragraph 28). With respect to claim 10, Xu discloses that the outer layer (7) may be made of PET (Paragraph 28).
While Xu discloses the cable (Figs 1-2) comprises a first insulating layer (4), Xu doesn’t necessarily disclose the insulating layer also comprising a second inner insulating layer covering the first inner insulating layer, wherein the first insulating layer covers the pair of core wires in a winding way, and the second insulating layer covers the first insulating layer by extrusion molding (claim 1), nor the dielectric constant and loss factor of the first insulating layer are both smaller than the dielectric constant and loss factor of the second insulating layer (claim 2), nor the second insulating layer being made of solid material (claim 3), nor the second insulating layer being made of the group consisting of PP, PE, foamed PP, and foamed FEP (claim 8).
Wang teaches a cable (Fig 2) being a stable structure, has small wire pair deformation during cabling, and a stable transmission performance (Paragraph 4), by using an inner sheath and wrapping tape to encase the pair of conductors (Paragraph 30). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Wang teaches a cable (Fig 2) comprising a pair of core wires (located at left and right 1) each including an inner conductor (1) and an inner insulating layer (2) covering the inner conductor (1), an insulating layer (3 & 5) covering the pair of core wires (located at left and right 1), a shielding layer (6) covering the insulating layer (3 & 5) and an outer layer (8) covering the shielding layer (6), wherein the insulating layer (3 & 5) includes a first insulating layer (3) and a second insulating layer (5), wherein the first insulating layer (3) covers the pair of core wires (located at left and right 1) in a winding way (Paragraph 20), and the second insulating layer (5) covers the first insulating layer (3) by extrusion molding (Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 2, Wang teaches that the dielectric constant and loss factor of the first insulating layer (3, i.e. EPTFE has an dielectric constant of 1.6-2.1 and a known loss factor of 0.0004-0.003) are both smaller than the dielectric constant and loss factor of the second insulating layer (5, PE has an dielectric constant of 2.2-2.35 and known loss factor of 0.2). With respect to claim 3, Wang teaches that the first insulating layer (3) is a foamed material (i.e. EPTFE, Paragraph 25) and the second insulating layer (5) may be a solid material (i.e. PE, FEP, or PP, Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 8, Wang teaches that the first insulating layer (3) may be EPTFE (Paragraph 25) and the second insulating layer (5) may be made of the group consisting of PP, PE, foamed PP, and foamed FEP (Paragraph 27).
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 Xu to comprise the insulating layer surrounding covering the pair of core wires to be made of two layered insulation configuration as taught by Wang because Wang teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Fig 2) that is a stable structure, has small wire pair deformation during cabling, and has a stable transmission performance (Paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 216311370) in view of Wang (CN 114446529), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Xu), further in view of Wessels et al (Pat Num 5,814,768, herein referred to as Wessels). Modified Xu discloses a cable (Figs 1-6) having superior transmission performance and lower insertion loss (Paragraph 4), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
While modified Xu discloses the cable (Figs 1-2) comprises the insulating layer comprising a first insulating layer and second insulating layer and the inner insulating layer comprising a first inner insulating layer and a second inner insulating layer (see rejection above), modified Xu doesn’t necessarily disclose the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer being made of the same material, except that one if foamed and the other is solid and the first inner insulating layer and the second inner insulating layer being the same material, except that one if foamed and the other is solid (claim 4).
Wessels teaches a cable (Figs 1-6) wherein differences in physical properties and factors affecting signal propagation are taken into account and correlated so that the signal propagation characteristics of the respective pairs of the cable are matched (Col 1, lines 50-55), in order to meet stringent electrical specifications of high speed communications (Col 2, lines 53-55) and eliminate electrical skew (Cols 1-2, lines 65-66 & 1-2, respectively). Specifically, with respect to claim 4, Wessels teaches a cable (Fig 4) comprising a pair of core wires (33) each including an inner conductor (12) and an inner insulating layer (34, 35) covering the inner conductor (12), wherein the inner insulating layers (34, 35) includes a first inner insulating layer (34) and a second inner insulating layer (35), wherein the first inner insulating layer (34) and the second inner insulating layer (35) may be made of the same material (i.e. PE or FEP, Col 5, lines 41-56), except that one if foamed (34) and the other is solid (35, Col 5, lines 41-56).
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 modified Xu to comprise dual layers of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer being made of the same material such as PE or FEP, except that one if foamed and the other is solid configuration as taught by Wessels because Wessels teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-6) wherein differences in physical properties and factors affecting signal propagation are taken into account and correlated so that the signal propagation characteristics of the respective pairs of the cable are matched (Col 1, lines 50-55), in order to meet stringent electrical specifications of high speed communications (Col 2, lines 53-55) and eliminate electrical skew (Cols 1-2, lines 65-66 & 1-2, respectively) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 216311370) in view of Wang (CN 114446529), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Xu), further in view of Kobayashi (Pub Num 2018/0301247). Modified Xu discloses a cable (Figs 1-6) having superior transmission performance and lower insertion loss (Paragraph 4), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
However, modified Xu doesn’t necessarily disclose the shielding layer is aluminum-coated PET or copper-coated PET (claim 9).
Kobayashi teaches a cable (Figs 1-6) comprising a cover that has higher mechanical strength and easily protects the insulated wires (Paragraph 29). Specifically, with respect to claim 9, Kobayashi teaches a cable (1, Fig 2) comprising a core wire (2, 2), a sheath (4) covering the core wire (2, 2), a shielding layer (4a) covering the sheath (4) and an outer insulating layer (6) covering the shielding layer (4a), wherein the core wire (2, 2) includes a pair of inner core wires (21, 22, 21, 22) and an insulating layer (3) covering the pair of inner core wires (21, 22, 21, 22) by extrusion molding (Paragraph 42), wherein each of the pair of inner core wires (21, 22, 21, 22) includes an inner conductor (21, 21) and an inner insulating layer (22, 22, respectively) covering the inner conductor (21, 21), and the sheath (4) wraps around the insulating layer (3), wherein the shielding layer (4a) may be selected from the group consisting of aluminum-coated PET or copper-coated PET (Paragraph 48).
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 modified Xu to comprise the shield being made of aluminum covered PET or copper covered PET configuration as taught by Kobayashi because Kobayashi teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-6) comprising a cover that has higher mechanical strength and easily protects the insulated wires (Paragraph 29) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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 discloses various cables having various layers of insulations and dual insulations having the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer being made of the same material, except that one if foamed and the other is solid.
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 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights