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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Claim(s)- 1, 3, 4, 5, 14 -are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 [a(2)] as being unpatentable over- Ito et al. [US 5677513 A, Patent Number-5677513].
Regarding Claim-1, as disclosed by Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] that the a communication line comprising: a core portion (Fig. 6B, 13) that extends in a longitudinal direction and has a circular cross section (Fig. 6B, 13); one or more ribs (Fig. 6B, 12) formed to extend from an outer surface of the core portion; a shielding portion (Fig. 6B, 11) that is connected to the rib, is formed to surround the core portion, and has at least one slit (Fig. 6B, 14) formed in the longitudinal direction; and a cover portion configured to cover the slit (Fig. 9, 20). See the Fig. 6B and Fig-9 from the reference Art of invention (Ito et al. [US 5677513 A]).
PNG
media_image1.png
838
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
780
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-3, Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] discloses that the shielding portion includes a wing portion formed to extend in a circumferential direction (Fig. 6B, Item- 11 & K1)- of the core portion (Fig. 6B, Item- 13)- from at least one of the ribs (12), and a portion of the cover portion is disposed to overlap a portion of the wing portion in a radial direction of the core portion Fig-9, Item-20) .
Regarding Claim-4, Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] discloses that the wing portion is formed to extend in both side directions from the rib, and both ends of the wing portion are spaced apart from each other to form a slit (Fig.6B, Item- 11 (wing) & 13 (Slit)).
Regarding Claim-5, Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] discloses that the one end of the wing portion formed to extend from any one of the ribs and one end of the wing portion formed to extend from an adjacent rib are spaced apart from each other to form a slit (Fig.6B, Item- 11 (wing) & 13 (Slit)).
Regarding Claim-14, Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] discloses that the core portion, the ribs, the shielding portion, and the cover portion are formed to extend in the same direction and are made of the same flexible dielectric material (Column-2 , Line-60 to 65).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103- as being unpatentable over Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] as disclosed in claim rejection 1 above, and further in view of Petry et al(US 2012/0267146]
Regarding Claim15, Ito et al. [US 5677513 A] does not disclose that a transmitter configured to output an electromagnetic wave signal toward the communication line.
However, HE (US 20210165173 A1)- discloses that a transmitter configured to output an electromagnetic wave signal toward the communication line (Paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a transmitter configured to output an electromagnetic wave signal toward the communication line for optical-signal transmitter in order to provide electromagnetic protection for components such as the chips and the optical-signal transmitter in the communication housing.
Claim(s)- 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103- as being unpatentable over Lee Jin Choong [KR 102209742 B1] in view of Petry et al(US 2012/0267146)
Regarding Claim-1, Lee Jin Choong - discloses a core portion (annotated Fig. below) that extends in a longitudinal direction, one or more ribs (annotated Fig. below, Item-90, 100) formed to extend from an outer surface of the core portion(see figure below); a shielding portion (annotated Fig. below, Item-30, 40) that is connected to the rib, is formed to surround the core portion, and has at least one slit portion (annotated Fig. below) formed in the longitudinal direction; and a cover portion configured to cover the slit portion (annotated Fig. below, Item-80). See the annotated Fig. below from the reference Art of invention (Lee Jin Choong [KR 102209742 B1]). Lee Jin Choong does not disclose a circular cross section at the core of this communication line. However, Petry et al. discloses a circular cross section at the core of this communication line(fig 3, 17) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a circular cross section at the core of this communication line for the purpose of balancing & structural integrity as shown by Petry et al, with the wiring harness of Lee Jin Choong, since this is done for structural integrity. Additionally, Case Law states : A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-6, Lee Jin Choong [KR 102209742 B1]- discloses that the cover portion protrudes from a portion of the wing portion, covers an adjacent slit, and extends while being bent (annotated Figure above, Item-80).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims- 2, 7-13, 16 - are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OBAIDUL GANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/OBAIDUL GANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights