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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025, 4/23/2025, & 6/10/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
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.
(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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitahara et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2010/0314154).
Regarding Claim 5, Kitahara discloses a method of using an electric wire (i.e. electrical wire 1) for an in- vehicle network cable (i.e. LAN cable) as an in-vehicle network cable in an in-vehicle network, the electric wire comprising:
a conductor (i.e. conductive core 11); and
a covering (i.e. coating 12) that covers a periphery of the conductor,
the electric wire having a diameter of 0.5 to 1.5 mm (i.e. 0.7mm),
the covering comprising a fluororesin that comprises a tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer (i.e. terpolymer of TFE/HFP/PAVE or PPVE),
the fluororesin having a melt flow rate of 20 to 40 g/10 min (i.e. 23.5 g/10 min) measured at 372°C under a 5-kg load, a relative permittivity of 2.2 or lower (i.e. 2.0) measured at 25°C and 6 GHz, a melting point of 250°C or higher (i.e. 256.8°C), an MIT folding endurance of 2000 times or more, and a tensile elongation at 150°C of 300% or higher, the method comprising laying the in-vehicle network cable inside a vehicle, and using the in-vehicle network cable for communication (i.e. the cable is a LAN cable which is used for communication) (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs 0005, 0010-0015, 0032-0034, 0049, 0052-0059, 0075-0082, 0097). Although Kitahara is silent on the MIT folding endurance and tensile elongation of the fluororesin, Kitahara teaches the claimed fluororesin composition of the covering along with various claimed chemical and physical properties. Therefore, one skilled in the art would expect other claimed chemical and physical properties such as the MIT folding endurance and tensile elongation to be the same. As per the MPEP, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
The claim contains a preamble statement which recites a purpose or intended use for the electric wire in an in-vehicle network cable. Although Kitahara teaches that the electrical wire can be preferably employed as an electrical insulated wire for communication and an example of the electrical insulated wire for communication is a cable for connecting a computer and a peripheral device, such a cable for data transfer like LAN cable, Kitahara is silent on using it in an in-vehicle network cable. However, using the electrical wire of Kitahara in a vehicle is within the possible uses of the invention and it is suitable for that use and purpose. Regardless of this, during examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Relevant Cited Art
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However, it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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 (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights