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 provisional priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The provisional application being filed 03/26/2015, as Application No. 62/138,575.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/15/2025 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,453,589.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application (the broader claim) contains similar subject matter from claim 1 of US Patent No. 10,453,589 (the narrower claim) except that claim 1 of US Patent No. 10,453,589 (the narrower claim) claims “four twisted pairs of wires and no other wires”, whereas claim 1 of the current application (the broader claim) claims “at least one twisted pair of wires”.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,453,589 in view of Kenny et al. (US 2005/0092514 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the current application (the narrower claim) contains similar subject matter from claim 3 of US Patent No. 10,453,589 (the broader claim) except that claim 3 of current application (the narrower claim) also claims “at least four twisted pairs of wires, each wire having … a pair lay length less than or equal to about 1.496 inches”, whereas claim 3 of US Patent No. 10,453,589 (the broader claim) claims “four twisted pair of wires and no other wires”.
Kenny discloses (in Fig. 11A and Fig. 11B and paragraphs 0156, 0157, and 0159) a method of extending the usable length of cable [120-1] comprising the steps of providing the cable [120-1] with at least four twisted pairs of wires [240a, 240b, 240c, 240d], each wire having a pair lay length less than or equal to about 1.496 inches (See paragraph 0159: For example, the second cable 120-1 shown in FIG. 11A can be twisted at a lay length of 3.00 inches (76.2 mm) to become the cable 120-1". At a 3.00 inch (76.2 mm) cable lay length for the cable 120-1", the resultant lay lengths of the cable's 120-1" twisted pairs become the following: 0.273 inches (6.934 mm) for the twisted pair 240a", 0.353 inches (8.966 mm) for the twisted pair 240c", 0.429 inches (10.897) for the twisted pair 240b", and 0.500 inches (12.7 mm) for the twisted pair 240d".).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of US Patent No. 10,453,589 such that the cable has at least four twisted pairs of wires, each wire having a pair lay length less than or equal to about 1.496 inches, as taught by Kenny, in order to provide cables that efficiently and accurately propagate high-speed data signals by, among other functions, limiting at least a subset of the following: impedance deviations, signal attenuation, and alien crosstalk along the predefined distance (as taught by Kenny in paragraph 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are allowed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected over 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenny et al. (US 2005/0092514 A1) in view of Ghosal et al. (US 2007/0041387 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kenny discloses (in Fig. 11A and Fig. 11B and paragraphs 0156, 0157, and 0159) a method of extending the usable length of cable [120-1] comprising the steps of providing the cable [120-1] with at least four twisted pairs of wires [240a, 240b, 240c, 240d], each wire having a pair lay length less than or equal to about 1.496 inches (See paragraph 0159: For example, the second cable 120-1 shown in FIG. 11A can be twisted at a lay length of 3.00 inches (76.2 mm) to become the cable 120-1". At a 3.00 inch (76.2 mm) cable lay length for the cable 120-1", the resultant lay lengths of the cable's 120-1" twisted pairs become the following: 0.273 inches (6.934 mm) for the twisted pair 240a", 0.353 inches (8.966 mm) for the twisted pair 240c", 0.429 inches (10.897) for the twisted pair 240b", and 0.500 inches (12.7 mm) for the twisted pair 240d".).
Kenny does not explicitly disclose the cable is a power-over-ethernet cable, each wire having a 22 AWG conductor, and terminating the cable in an RJ-45 style connector.
Ghosal teaches (in Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0029, 0092, 0093) a power-over-ethernet cable [204] (See paragraph 0029, which discloses a network cable that is a power-over-ethernet cable), each wire having a 22 AWG conductor (See paragraph 0092: “In some configuration embodiments, the network connector 232 receives multiple twisted pair conductors 204, for example twisted 22-26 gauge wire.”), and terminating the cable in an RJ-45 style connector [232] (See paragraph 0093: “In the context of an Ethernet network interface, network connector 232 may be a RJ45 connector that is operable to receive multiple twisted wire pairs.”).
Furthermore, since Kenny also discloses (in paragraph 0075) that in some embodiments, the dimensions, or size, of the cables 120 and their components comply with industry dimensional standards for RJ-45 cables and connectors, such as RJ-45 jacks and plugs and that in some embodiments, the size of the conductors 300 is between #22 American Wire Gage (AWG) and #26 AWG; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable of Kenny such that the cable is a power-over-ethernet cable, each wire having a 22 AWG conductor, and terminating the cable in an RJ-45 style connector, as taught by Ghosal, in order to provide a cable that improves power supply utilization and that can be used to transmit power management information over an Ethernet system (as taught by Ghosal in paragraphs 0028 and 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Kenny, as applied to claim 3, further discloses (in Fig. 11A and Fig. 11B and paragraphs 0156, 0157, and 0159) wherein the step of providing the cable [120-1] with at least four twisted pairs of wires [240a, 240b, 240c, 240d] is further characterized by providing a cable lay length less than or equal to about 4.724" (See paragraph 0159: For example, the second cable 120-1 shown in FIG. 11A can be twisted at a lay length of 3.00 inches (76.2 mm) to become the cable 120-1". At a 3.00 inch (76.2 mm) cable lay length for the cable 120-1", the resultant lay lengths of the cable's 120-1" twisted pairs become the following: 0.273 inches (6.934 mm) for the twisted pair 240a", 0.353 inches (8.966 mm) for the twisted pair 240c", 0.429 inches (10.897) for the twisted pair 240b", and 0.500 inches (12.7 mm) for the twisted pair 240d".).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN NG whose telephone number is (571)270-3131. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10AM-6PM.
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 on 5712722342. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SHERMAN NG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
