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. 18/978,468, filed on December 12, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 12, 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
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the claim limitation of “wherein the conductive tape is spirally wound around the outer circumference of the binder tape in such a manner that one end and another end in a width direction do not overlap” twice in the claim. Please delete the redundancy of the above stated claim limitation to provide the claim with proper claim language. 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.
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto et al (JP Pat Num 2022-082303, herein referred to as Makoto) in view of Weinraub (Pat Num 4,441,309). Makoto discloses a cable (Figs 1-4C), for usage in automobiles as a brake cable (Paragraph 9), and is capable of detecting the sign of a break in an electrical wire with fixed sensitivity at any position (abstract), if the cable is repeatedly subjected to bending or vibration, resulting metal fatigue causing the conductors to break (Paragraph 3). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Makoto discloses a cable (1’, Fig 3A-3B) comprising a wire bundle (2) comprising a plurality of wires bundled together (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D), a binder tape (4) spirally wound around an outer circumference of the wire bundle (2, Paragraph 34), a conductive tape (7) having electrical conductivity and spirally wound around an outer circumference of the binder tape (4, Paragraph 57) and a sheath (5) covering the binder tape (4) and the conductive tape (7, Fig 3B), wherein the conductive tape (7) is spirally wound around the outer circumference of the binder tape (4) in such a manner that one end and another end in a width direction do not overlap (Fig 3A), and wherein a spiral winding direction (as shown in Figs 4A & 4B) of the conductive tape (8) and a spiral winding direction of the binder tape (4) are the same (Fig 4A). With respect to claims 3-4, Makoto discloses that the spiral winding pitch of the conductive tape (7) is narrower than a spiral winding of pitch of the binder tape (4, Fig 3a), wherein the binder tape (4) is wider than a width of the conductive tape (7, Fig 3B).
Makoto doesn’t necessarily disclose the spiral winding direction of the conductive tape and the spiral direction of the binder tape being opposite (claim 1).
Weinraub teaches a known configuration of a cable (Fig 2), wherein the cable comprises various configurations of helically wrapped elements, such as shielding and binder tapes, resulting in torque responses that cause the cable to kink thereby affecting the performance of the cable (Col 1, lines 1-35) wherein the one or more helically layers are helically wrapped in opposite directions to counteract the torque response, thereby eliminating problems affecting the performance of the cable (Col 1, lines 36-42). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Weinraub teaches a cable (Fig 3) comprising a cable core (located at 201) , a binder tape (203) surrounding the cable core (located at 201), a conductive tape (209, 210) surrounding the binder tape (203), and a sheath (211) covering the binder tape (203) and conductive tape (209, 210), wherein the spiral winding direction of the conductive tape (209, 210) and the spiral direction of the binder (203) tape being opposite (Col 1, lines 36-42).
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 Makoto to comprise the spiral winding direction of the conductive tape and the spiral direction of the binder tape being opposite configuration as taught by Weinraub because Weinraub teaches that such a configuration is a known configuration of a cable (Fig 2), wherein the cable comprises various configurations of helically wrapped elements, such as shielding and binder tapes, resulting in torque responses that cause the cable to kink thereby affecting the performance of the cable (Col 1, lines 1-35) wherein the one or more helically layers are helically wrapped in opposite directions to counteract the torque response, thereby eliminating problems affecting the performance of the cable (Col 1, lines 36-42) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto (JP Pat Num 2022-082303) in view of Weinraub (Pat Num 4,441,309), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Makoto), further in view of Hawakawa et al (Pub Num 2019/0248308, herein referred to as Hawakawa). Modified Makoto discloses a cable (Figs 1-4C), for usage in automobiles as a brake cable (Paragraph 45), and is capable of detecting the sign of a break in an electrical wire with fixed sensitivity at any position (abstract), if the cable is repeatedly subjected to bending or vibration, resulting metal fatigue causing the conductors to break (Paragraph 3). With respect to claim 2, modified Makoto discloses that the plurality of wires (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D) are twisted together (Paragraph 33) and the binder tape (4) is spirally wrapped around the plurality of wires (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, Paragraph 34).
However, modified Makoto doesn’t necessarily disclose the plurality of wires are twisted together, wherein the spiral winding direction of the binder tape and a twisting direction of the plurality of wires are opposite (claim 2).
Hawakawa teaches a cable (Figs 1-3), for usage in automobiles as a brake cable (Paragraphs 2-3), and having improved bending resistance and being easy to manufacture (Paragraph 9). Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Hawakawa teaches a cable (1, Figs 2A-2B) comprising a wire bundle (2, 3) comprising a plurality of wires bundled together (2, 3), a binder tape (6) spirally wound around an outer circumference of the wire bundle (2, 3, Paragraph 32), and a sheath (7) covering the binder tape (6), wherein the plurality of wires (2, 3) are twisted together, wherein the spiral winding direction (clockwise) of the binder tape (6) and a twisting direction (counterclockwise) of the plurality of wires (2, 3) are opposite (Fig 2B).
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 Makoto to comprise the plurality of wires are twisted together, wherein the spiral winding direction of the binder tape and a twisting direction of the plurality of wires are opposite configuration as taught by Hawakawa because Hawakawa teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-3), for usage in automobiles as a brake cable (Paragraphs 2-3), and having improved bending resistance and being easy to manufacture (Paragraph 9) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto (JP Pat Num 2022-082303) in view of Weinraub (Pat Num 4,441,309), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Makoto), further in view of Nakajima et al (JP Pat Num 2007/0305478A, herein referred to as Nakajima). Modified Makoto discloses a cable (Figs 1-4C), for usage in automobiles as a brake cable (Paragraph 45), and is capable of detecting the sign of a break in an electrical wire with fixed sensitivity at any position (abstract), if the cable is repeatedly subjected to bending or vibration, resulting metal fatigue causing the conductors to break (Paragraph 3). With respect to claim 5, modified Makoto discloses that a linear conductor (3) in a cable longitudinal direction (Fig 3B) and arranged together with the plurality of wires (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D) inside of the binder tape (4, Paragraph 33). With respect to claim 6, modified Makoto discloses a damage detection device (9, Fig 2) for detecting damage to the cable (1, Paragraph 48), wherein an electric current is applied to the conductive tape (7) and the linear conductor (3) and a damage detection signal indicating that damage has occurred to the cable (1) is output when the electric current is inactive (Paragraph 48).
However, modified Makoto doesn’t necessarily disclose the linear conductor electrically connected to the conductive tape at one terminal (claim 5).
Nakajima teaches a cable (Figs 1-3), for usage in automobiles (Paragraph 2), and having improved break detection (Paragraph 7) as a result of bending causing breakage of conductors (Paragraph 5). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Nakajima teaches a cable (10, Figs 2A-2B) comprising a wire bundle (11) comprising a plurality of wires bundled together (15), a conductive tape (12) surrounding an outer circumference of the wire bundle (15, Paragraph 32), a linear conductor (14), and a sheath (13) covering the conductive tape (12), wherein the linear conductor (14) is electrical connected to the conductive tape (14, Paragraph 22) at one terminal (Figs 4-5).
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 Makoto to comprise the linear conductor electrically connected to the conductive tape at one terminal configuration as taught by Nakajima because Nakajima teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Figs 1-3), for usage in automobiles (Paragraph 2), and having improved break detection (Paragraph 7) as a result of bending causing breakage of conductors (Paragraph 5) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
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 configurations of cable for usage in automobiles, as brake cables.
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
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights