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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/12/2025. These drawings are accepted for examination.
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) 1-4 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwaya et al (US 2022/0071473).
Regarding claims 1-4, Iwaya et al discloses an ultrasonic endoscope with ultrasound T/R elements at the distal end (Fig 2-3), a cable connected to the ultrasound T/R section, and a filler that fills gap in the cable portion (0048, 0059). The cable includes multiple signal cables electrically connected to the T/R section, has covering member that bundles the cables, and a cover which shields the first cover member/layer (Abs, Fig 5, 8-10, 0059, 0065-0070). The cable includes a first region with cable elements exposed, second wherein there exists the first covering layer exposed, and a third whereby the outer layer is the second covering layer which is exposed (0065, 0069, 0070, 0013-0014, 0074-0075, and 0079-0087, including the multiple exposed layer recitation (0083-0087)). The filler and a protrusion are included in contact with and on the outer surface of the third region, respectively (Figs 3, 7, 0043-0044, 0065).
Regarding claims 13-16, Iwaya et al discloses and teaches a sealing/boundary element between the regions of the cables (0014-0016, 0083-0085) creating transition between regions.
Regarding claims 17-20, Iwaya et al discloses and teaches the use of a resin material as the sealing member for the layer (Fig 7), having a higher viscosity than filler material (0048, 0059), as well as the distal end imaging unit (Fig 2, 3).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaya et al (US 2022/0071473) in view of Morimoto et al (US 2019/0133558).
Regarding claims 5-12, Iwaya et al does NOT specify the level of smoothness of the relative covering members, but does describe different material characteristics which can be used for shielding and covering layers. However, Iwaya et al does disclose the inclusion of laminating metallic foils (0074), specifically including copper foils. Additionally, the filling elements and coatings are both disclosed as including possible metallic particle inclusion in their composition (0074-0079).
Attention is hereby directed to the teaching reference to Morimoto et al which expressly teaches the inclusion of mesh shield layers ((as recited in claims 9-12 as the covering which has lower smoothness) (0193-0194)). The properties of the foil are discussed as being thermally conductive and capable of being set to various thickness and material characteristics based on desired thermal and electrical properties so desired (0187-0196). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the mesh designs of Morimoto et al with those of Iwaya et al to provide for a result effective smoothness for each of the coating/shielding layers of the coaxial cabling, given the material considerations of both references (0187-0196, Morimoto; 0074-0079, Iwaya et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798