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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10, line 2, note that in light of the specification, the recitation of “approximately 50mm cubed” causes ambiguity in the claim, since it is unclear as to what would constitute as “approximately” (i.e. the specification doesn’t give any boundary or range as to what “approximately” will encompass). Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that the print area is set to 50mm cubed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (KR102347543 B1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner).
In regards to claim 1, Yoo et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a cable assembly comprising: a cable (10) and at least one first connector (230) monolithically attached to a first end of the cable: and wherein the cable and the at least one first connector are both printed using a 3D printer (see machine English translation paragraph [0001]).
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 1, the cable assembly further comprising at least one second connector (220) monolithically attached to a second end of the cable, wherein the second end of the cable is opposite the first end of the cable.
In regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 1, the cable (10) is a hallow waveguide.
In regards to claim 8, based on Fig. 1 and machine English translation paragraph [0001], the cable is not extruded (i.e. the cable is 3D printed, which is an additive process, which doesn’t require being extruded).
In regards to claim 9, based on Fig. 1, wherein the at least one first connector (230) comprises no stamped electrical connector conductors.
Claims 50, 54 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seidler et al. (US2017/0151915 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claim 50, Seidler et al. teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0007], a 3D printed electrical connector comprising: a 3D printed electrically non-conductive housing (18); and at least one 3D printed electrical contact (22) or electrical conductor (20).
In regards to claim 54, Seidler et al. teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0007] an electrical cable assembly (16) comprising: an electrically insulative housing (18); electrical conductors (20) carried by the electrically insulative housing; and flex circuit cables (pins 22) each including one or two cable conductors, respectfully, and the finished electrical cable assembly is devoid of any of the following: a mechanically coined or pressed cable conductor; a mechanical crimp between a cable conductor and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad; solder connection between a cable conductor and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad; an insulation displacement connection between a cable conductor and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad; a weld or ultrasonic weld or ultrasonic bond between a cable connector and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad; an electrically conductive polymer or an electrically conductive epoxy between a cable connector and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad; and a laser attach between a cable conductor and an associated leadframe conductor or an associated printed circuit board pad (Seidler et al. make no mention of any of the above “devoid” recited features).
In regards to claim 59, Seidler et al. teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0007] and [0019], a 3D printed cable assembly comprising; an electrically conductive material (20 and 22) and an electrically non-conductive material (18); and wherein the electrically conductive material and the electrically non-conductive material are both printed during single print operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (KR102347543 B1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner) in view of Hollenbeck et al. (US2022/0140477 A1, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, Yoo et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Yoo et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 4, wherein the cable comprises at least one electrical cable conductor; and in regards to claim 5, wherein the cable comprises at least two electrical cable conductors.
However, Hollenbeck et al. exemplary teaches in Fig. 1 a cable assembly comprising a hollow waveguide (104) comprising two electrical cable conductors (126a and 126b) within to provided electrical connections.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Yoo et al. and have added electrical cable conductors (i.e. 2 or more) within the hollow waveguide as exemplary taught by Hollenbeck et al. (see Fig. 1) because such a modification would have provided the benefit of additional electrical connections for the cable assembly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (KR102347543 B1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner).
As discussed above, Yoo et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Yoo et al. does not explicitly teach: in regards to claim 10, wherein the cable assembly is printed within an area of 50 mm cubed.
However, Yoo et al. teaches in machine English translation paragraph [0059] that the cable assembly width is determined based on a desired cutoff frequency and frequency range, in which the cable assembly width will necessarily determine the print area.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Yoo et al. and have designed the cable assembly to have any desired width (e.g. such as one that results in a print area of 50 mm cubed) because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired cutoff frequency and frequency range (see machine English translation paragraph [0059]).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler et al. (US2017/0151915 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Namjoshi et al. (US2013/0084716 A1).
As discussed above, Seidler et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 54. Seidler et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 55, noble metal plating carried by one or more of the electrical conductors.
Namjoshi et al. teaches in Fig. 4 a connector comprising an electrical conductor/contact (62) that is plated with a metal (66). Namjoshi et al. teaches in paragraph [0042] that the plated metal is made from a noble metal to resist corrosion.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Seidler et al. and have plated the electrical conductors/pins with a noble metal because such a modification would have provided the benefit of resisting corrosion as taught by Namjoshi et al. (see paragraph [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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 JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on 571-272-5918. 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.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights