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 January 29, 2024, as Application No. 63/626,525.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 2, 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 28, 2025. These drawings are approved.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
In lines 6-9, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 5 & 6-7, the abstract recites the terms “Cables described herein ……” and “Because the cables described herein……”, respectively, which are improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vu et al (Pub Num 2014/0124236, herein referred to as Vu). Vu discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Vu discloses a high frequency cable (1300, Figs 13 & 16) comprising at least one signal conductor (1310, 1320), a cable shield (1330) surrounding the at least one signal conductor (1310, 1320) and at least one insulative strip (1340) wrapped around the cable shield (1330) with a non-uniform pitch (Paragraph 18, as shown in Fig 16). With respect to claim 2, Vu discloses that the at least one insulative strip (1340) is spirally wrapped (as shown in Fig 16). With respect to claim 3, Vu discloses that the cable shield (1330) is spirally wrapped (as shown in Fig 8) and the spirally wrapped cable shield (1330) and the at least one insulative strip (1340) may have different pitches (Paragraph 13). With respect to claim 7, Vu discloses that each insulative strip of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may comprise a polymer tape (Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 8, Vu discloses that the cable (1300) may further comprising a conductive layer (i.e. copper, aluminum, etc., Paragraph 48) affixed to each insulative strip (1340) of the at least one insulative strip (1340), wherein each insulative strip of the at least one insulative strip may be Mylar and the conductive layer may be metal foil (Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 10, Vu discloses that the high frequency cable (500, as shown in Fig 5) may be a drainless twinax cable (Fig 5). With respect to claim 11, Vu discloses that the high frequency cable (1300) may be a twinax cable comprising a drain wire (Fig 13). With respect to claim 13, Vu discloses that the cable (1300) is capable of supporting a data rate of 224 Gbps (i.e. Paragraph 8 states that the cable is high speed, and all of the claimed structure is present and therefore Vu inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 17, Vu discloses that the pitch of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may vary periodically along a length of the high frequency cable (1300, as shown in Fig 16) and the pitch of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may vary sinusoidally (as shown in Fig 16).
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.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (Pub Num 2014/0124236). Vu discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract), as applied to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 15-16, Vu discloses that the pitch of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may vavaryeriodically along a length of the high frequency cable (1300, as shown in Fig 16) and the pitch of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may vary sinusoidally (as shown in Fig 16).
However, Vu doesn’t necessarily disclose the pitch of the at least one insulative strip varies by at least +/- 5% over a 1 m length of the high frequency cable (claim 15), nor the pitch of the at least one insulative strip varying with a period in a range of 0.5 to 2 meters (claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the high frequency cable of Vu to comprise the pitch of the at least one insulative strip to vary by at least +/- 5% over a 1 m length of the high frequency cable with a period in a range of 0.5 to 2 meters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (Pub Num 2014/0124236) in view of Sugiyama (Pub Num 2015/0170800). Vu discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract), as applied to claim 1 above.
However, Vu doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable shield being longitudinally wrapped.
Sugiyama teaches a high frequency cable (Figs 1-10), wherein the gap of between the insulated wire and the shield tape is reduced, thereby reducing skew and attenuating of signals at high frequencies (Paragraphs 6-8). Specifically, with respect to claim 4, Sugiyama teaches a high frequency cable (1 Figs 1-2) comprising at least one signal conductor (2a, 3), a cable shield (5c) surrounding the at least one signal conductor (2a, 3) and at least one insulative strip (6) wrapped around the cable shield (5c) with a pitch (Paragraph 35, as shown in Fig 1), wherein the cable shield (5c) may be either spirally or longitudinally wrapped around the signal conductor (2a, 3, Paragraph 34).
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 high frequency cable of Vu to comprise the shield layer being longitudinally wrapped configuration as taught by Sugiyama because Sugiyama teaches that such a configuration provides a high frequency cable (Figs 1-10), wherein the gap of between the insulated wire and the shield tape is reduced, thereby reducing skew and attenuating of signals at high frequencies (Paragraphs 6-8).
Claim(s) 5-6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (Pub Num 2014/0124236) in view of Matsuda et al (Pub Num 2011/0247856, herein referred to Matsuda). Vu discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract), as applied to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Vu discloses that each signal conductor (L & R 1310) of the at least one signal conductor (1310, 1320) is surrounded by an insulator (L & R 1320, respectively) and the cable shield (1330) is outside the insulator (L & R 1320). With respect to claim 6, Vu discloses that each insulative strip (1340) of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may have a uniform width (Paragraph 18, pitch may vary but it may also be constant in alternative embodiment). With respect to claim 12, Vu discloses that the width of the at least one insulative strip (1340) may varies along a length of the high frequency cable (Paragraph 18). With respect to claim 14, Vu discloses that the at least one insulative strip (1340) may have an average pitch (Paragraph 18).
Vu doesn’t necessarily disclose each signal conductor of the at least one signal conductor has a diameter of 26 AWG or smaller (claim 5), nor the at least one insulative strip has a width between 2 mm and 10 mm (claim 6), nor each insulative strip of the at least one insulative strip has a width between 2 mm and 10 mm (claim 12), nor the average pitch of the at least one insulative strip is in a range between 1 mm and 7 mm (claim 14).
Matsuda teaches a high frequency cable (Figs 1-5B), wherein no sudden signal attenuation occurs in high frequency ranges (Paragraph 7), thereby eliminating precipitous signal attenuation in high frequency ranges (Paragraph 11) and suck out to result in a smooth signal attenuation (Paragraph 34). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Matsuda teaches a high frequency cable (1, Figs 1-2) comprising at least one signal conductor (4, 4), a cable shield (6) surrounding the at least one signal conductor (4, 4), wherein each signal conductor (2, 2) of the at least one signal conductor (4, 4) has a diameter of 26 AWG or smaller (i.e. 18-46 AWG encompasses 26 AWG, Paragraph 21). With respect to claims 6 & 12, Matsuda teaches that the at least one insulative strip (5) of the may have a width between 2 mm and 10 mm (i.e. 8mm is within the range, Paragraph 26). With respect to claim 14, Matsuda teaches an average pitch of the at least one insulative strip (5) being in a range between 1 mm and 7 mm (i.e. 3-50mm overlaps a majority of the claimed range, Paragraph 26).
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 high frequency cable of Vu to comprise the wire gauge and tape width and pitch configuration as taught by Matsuda because Matsuda teaches that such a configuration provides a high frequency cable (Figs 1-5B), wherein no sudden signal attenuation occurs in high frequency ranges (Paragraph 7), thereby eliminating precipitous signal attenuation in high frequency ranges (Paragraph 11) and suck out to result in a smooth signal attenuation (Paragraph 34).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu (Pub Num 2014/0124236) in view of Applicant’s Own Admission of Prior Art (herein referred to AOAPA). Vu discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract), as applied to claim 1 above.
However, Vu doesn’t necessarily disclose the at least one insulative strip comprises two counter-wound insulative strips (claim 9).
AOAPA teaches a known high frequency cable (Fig 2) wherein the components of the cable impact signal propagation if they are not uniform over a length of the cable (Paragraph 4). With respect to claim 9, AOAPA teaches a high frequency cable (Fig 2) comprising at least one signal conductor (110, 112), a cable shield (114) surrounding the at least one signal conductor (110, 112) and at least one insulative strip (116 & 118) wrapped around the cable shield (114) with a pitch (Fig 2), wherein the at least one insulative strip (116 & 118) comprises two, counter-wound insulative strips (116 & 18), that are wrapped counter to each other (Paragraph 9).
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 high frequency cable of Vu to comprise the at least one insulative strip to be two counter wound insulative strips configuration as taught by AOAPA because AOAPA teaches that such a configuration is known and commonly utilized in high frequency cables (Paragraphs 7-9) and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8)..
Claim(s) 18-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (Pub Num 2015/0170800) in view of Vu (Pub Num 2014/0124236). Sugiyama discloses a high frequency cable (Figs 1-10), wherein the gap of between the insulated wire and the shield tape is reduced, thereby reducing skew and attenuating of signals at high frequencies (Paragraphs 6-8). Specifically, with respect to claim 18, Sugiyama discloses a method of manufacturing a high frequency cable (1, Fig 3), wherein the method comprising surrounding at least one signal conductor (2a, 3) with a cable shield (5c) and pulling the surrounded at least one signal conductor (2a, 3) past at least one wrapping head (20) while each of the at least one wrapping heads (20) rotating about the surrounded at least one signal conductor (2a, 3) and dispensing an insulative strip (6 & 7), wherein a linear velocity at which the surrounded at least one signal conductor (2a & 3) is pulled past the at least one wrapping head (50).
However, Sugiyama doesn’t disclose the rotational velocity varies (claim 18), nor the rotational velocity varies periodically (claim 19), nor the linear velocity varies periodically (claim 20).
Vu teaches a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claims 18-20, Vu teaches a high frequency cable (1300, Figs 13 & 16) comprising at least one signal conductor (1310, 1320), a cable shield (1330) surrounding the at least one signal conductor (1310, 1320) and at least one insulative strip (1340) wrapped around the cable shield (1330) wherein a rotational velocity varies periodically to form a insulative strip (1340) with a non-uniform pitch (Paragraph 18, as shown in Fig 16).
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 method of forming a high frequency cable of Sugiyama to comprise the varying pitch configuration as taught by Vu because Vu teaches that such a configuration provides a high frequency cable (Figs 1-18) having low insertion loss, while mitigating the effect of suckout component by providing a cable that eliminates, shift, or reduces suckout by providing a continuous return path or shifting the frequency wherein it no longer interferes or significantly attenuates signals being conveyed by the cable (abstract).
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 high frequency 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
September 25, 2025
