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 Objections
Claim3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3, line 2, “conductor” should be changed to --conductors--. 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (2018/0301247) in view of Skocypec (2010/0175910).
Kobayashi discloses a cable comprising two inner conductors (21A) arranged in parallel ([0072]); and a sheath layer (3A) covering outside the two inner conductors, wherein there are no air holes between the two inner conductors (re-claim 1).
Kobayashi does not disclose a plurality of air holes being provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals and surround the two inner conductors as a whole (re-claim 1).
Skocypec (Fig. 3) discloses a cable comprising inner conductors and a sheath layer (310) covering outside the inner conductors, wherein a plurality of air holes (370) are provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals, surround the inner conductors as a whole, and are uniformly arranged in a regular shape as a whole (re-claims 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of air holes as taught by Skocypec in the sheath layer (3A) of Kobayashi to reduce the dielectric constant of the sheath layer surrounding the inner conductors.
Re-claim 3, Kobayashi discloses an inner insulating layer (22A) being provided between the inner conductors and the sheath layer, wherein the inner insulating layer is provided outside the two inner conductors. 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, extruded, 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 5, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the air holes in the modified cable of Kobayashi such that the sum of the areas of the air holes on the sheath layer is greater than the area of the inner insulating layer since the greater sum of the areas of the air holes, the lower dielectric constant of the sheath layer. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re-claim 6, Kobayashi discloses the sheath layer being provided outside the inner insulating layer.
Re-claim 8, Kobayashi discloses the cable further comprising a shielding layer (4) disposed outside the sheath layer.
Re-claim 10, Kobayashi discloses the inner conductor being silver-plated copper ([0040]).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (2022/0215986) in view of Skocypec.
Zheng et al. discloses a cable comprising two inner conductors (1) arranged in parallel (i.e., Zheng discloses the two insulated wires connected by a connection portion 21, and does not disclose they are being twisted); and a sheath layer (20) covering outside the two inner conductors, wherein there are no air holes between the two inner conductors (re-claim 1).
Zheng et al. does not disclose a plurality of air holes being provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals and surround the two inner conductors as a whole (re-claim 1).
Skocypec (Fig. 3) discloses a cable comprising inner conductors and a sheath layer (310) covering outside the inner conductors, wherein a plurality of air holes (370) are provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals, surround the inner conductors as a whole, and are uniformly arranged in a regular shape as a whole (re-claims 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of air holes as taught by Skocypec in the sheath layer (20) of Zheng et al. to reduce the dielectric constant of the sheath layer surrounding the inner conductors.
Re-claims 3 and 4, Zheng et al. discloses an inner insulating layer (2) being provided between the inner conductors and the sheath layer, wherein the inner insulating layer is provided outside the two inner conductors, and wherein the two annular portions are connected by a connecting portion (21). 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, extruded, 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).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uegaki et al. (2023/0098842) in view of Skocypec.
Uegaki et al. discloses a cable comprising two inner conductors (12) arranged in parallel ([0024]); and a sheath layer (20) covering outside the two inner conductors, wherein there are no air holes between the two inner conductors (re-claim 1).
Uegaki et al. does not disclose a plurality of air holes being provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals and surround the two inner conductors as a whole (re-claim 1).
Skocypec (Fig. 3) discloses a cable comprising inner conductors and a sheath layer (310) covering outside the inner conductors, wherein a plurality of air holes (370) are provided on the sheath layer, wherein the air holes are arranged at intervals, surround the inner conductors as a whole, and are uniformly arranged in a regular shape as a whole (re-claims 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a plurality of air holes as taught by Skocypec in the sheath layer (20) of Kobayashi to reduce the dielectric constant of the sheath layer surrounding the inner conductors.
Re-claim 3, Uegaki et al. discloses an inner insulating layer (13) being provided between the inner conductors and the sheath layer, wherein the inner insulating layer is provided outside the two inner conductors. 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, extruded, 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 7, Uegaki et al. discloses the thickness of the sheath layer (20, [0045], 0.74 mm) being greater than that of the inner insulating layer (13, [0044], 0.19 mm).
Re-claim 9, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the sheath layer of Uegaki et al. to be FEP since such material is known in the art for its flame/fire resistance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Skocypec as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Siekierka et al. (5606151).
Kobayashi, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the inner insulating layer comprising two annular portions (22A) respectively surrounding each inner conductor. Kobayashi does not disclose a connection portion connecting two annular portions. Siekierka et al. discloses a cable comprising two conductors (Figs 2 & 3) and an insulating layer comprising two annular portions (14, 15) and a connection portion (18) connecting the two annular portions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect the two annular portions of Kobayashi with a connecting portion (a web) as taught by Siekierka et al. to keep a constant distance between the two conductors, in turn improving the electrical properties of the cable.
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