UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`| ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. | CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`|
`
`
`
`15/610,504
`
`05/31/2017
`
`Andrew John Wehrli
`
`096001-1205
`
`5160
`
`
`
`|
`
`EXAMINER
`
`MAYO II, WILLIAM H
`
`07/03/2017
`
`7590
`48329
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K STREET N.W.
`SUITE 600
`WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`|
`
`ART UNIT
`
`|
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`|
`
`
`
`2847
`
`
`
`|
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`|
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`|
`
`
`
`07/03/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocketing @foley.com
`
`
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`
`
` -- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`WEHRLI ET AL.
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`2847
`vase
`
`
`
`Application No.
`15/610,504
`Examiner
`WILLIAM H. MAYO III
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`1)L] Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`L] A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filedon__
`
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) This action is non-final.
`
`3)L] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`___} the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)KX] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)X] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)
`is/are objected to.
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`
`
`*
`
`If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`hito/Awww usoto.gov/patents/init events/oph/index.isp or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspte gov.
`
`
`
`Application Papers
`10)KX] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)K] The drawing(s) filed on 5/31/2017 is/are: a)L_] accepted or b)X] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)L] All
`b)[-] Some** c)L] None of the:
`1.1]
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L]
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1]
`Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`““ See the attached detailed Office action for a
`
`list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) X Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`.
`.
`2) TC] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`.
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`
`3) | Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`
`.
`
`4) CL] Other:
`
`.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20170626
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35
`
`U.S.C. 120. The Continuation Application Number 14/520,125, being filed on October
`
`21, 2014.
`
`3.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for provisional priority under 35
`
`U.S.C. 119(e). The provisional application being filed October 23, 2013, as Application
`
`No. 61/894,728.
`
`Drawings
`
`4.
`
`The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-3D lacks the proper cross-
`
`hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention.
`
`Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductor and insulation materials is
`
`improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-
`
`hatching of materials. Correction is required.
`
`In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s),
`
`applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy
`
`must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the
`
`amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37
`
`CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy
`
`will result in the abandonment of the application.
`
`Specification
`
`5.
`
`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:
`a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
`(1) if
`(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.
`
`6.
`
`In lines 4-6, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of
`
`the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide
`
`the abstract with proper content.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`7.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
`
`patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
`
`least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
`
`been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
`
`USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
`
`686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
`
`(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
`
`commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
`
`result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See
`
`MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(I)(1) -
`
`706.02(I)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
`
`1.321(b).
`
`The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application
`
`in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26,
`
`PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may
`
`be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets
`
`all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For
`
`more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`
`
`www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-|.jsp.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,697,929. Although the claims at
`
`issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of
`
`the claimed limitations are claimed in various claims of the previous cited patent.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`9.
`
`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 of this title, 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`‘The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Clark (Pub Num 2006/0169478) in view of Roberts (Pub Num
`
`3,622,683). Clark discloses a communications cable (Figs 2-3) that may be exposed to
`
`force, stress, rough handling, and other disturbances present in mechanically dynamic
`
`environments (Paragraph 2). With respect to claims 1-2, Clark discloses a cable (70,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`Fig 2) comprising a
`
`first twisted pair of insulated conductors (50a), a second twisted pair
`
`of insulated conductors (50b), a
`
`filler (72) separating the first twisted pair of insulated
`
`conductors (50a) from the a second twisted pair of insulated conductors (50b) and may
`
`of a dielectric material (Paragraph 39), an a multi-layer conductive barrier tape (76)
`
`comprising a continuous conductive material (i.e. aluminum) contained on a layer of
`
`dielectric material (i.e. mylar, Paragraph 47), wherein the conductive material extends to
`
`lateral edges of the dielectric material (mylar) and surrounding the first twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50a), a second twisted pair of insulated conductors (50b), and the
`
`filler (72). With respect to claim 3, Clark discloses that the filler has a helical twist at a
`
`first angle (i.e. cable is laid at an angle resulting in a lay length of greater than 3 inches,
`
`Paragraph 43). With respect to claim 9, Clark discloses that the first twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50a) and the second twisted pair of insulated conductors (50b)
`
`have a helically twist around the filler (72) at a first angle (Paragraph 35). With respect
`
`to claims 10-13, Clark discloses that the filler (72) comprises four arms (four 75's) in a
`
`cross shape (Fig 2), wherein the arms (75's) are symmetrical terminal portions (Fig 2)
`
`and the barrier tape (76) is positioned above the terminal portion (i.e. ends) of the arms
`
`(75) of the filler (72, Fig 2). With respect to claim 16, Clark discloses that a pair of arms
`
`(adjacent 75’s) of the filler (72) forms a channel (74a-74d), wherein first twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50a) and second twisted pair of insulated conductors (50b) are
`
`positioned within the channels (74a & 74b). With respect to claim 17, Clark discloses
`
`that a jacket (78) surrounds the conductive barrier tape (76, Fig 8, Paragraph 48). With
`
`respect to claim 18, Clark discloses a method of manufacture of a cable (70) comprising
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`providing a
`
`first twisted pair of insulated conductors (50a) and second twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50b), positioning a
`
`filler (72) between the first twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50a) and the second twisted pair of insulated conductors (50b),
`
`and wrapping the first twisted pair of insulated conductors (50a), second twisted pair of
`
`insulated conductors (50b), and filler (72) with a conductive barrier tape (76) comprising
`
`a continuous conductive material (i.e. aluminum) contained on a layer of dielectric
`
`material (i.e. mylar, Paragraph 47), wherein the conductive material extends to lateral
`
`edges of the dielectric material (mylar).
`
`While Clark discloses a conductive barrier tape layer a continuous conductive
`
`material (i.e. aluminum) contained on a layer of dielectric material (i.e. mylar, Paragraph
`
`47), wherein the conductive material extends to lateral edges of the dielectric material
`
`(mylar), Clark doesn't necessarily disclose the barrier tape comprising a conductive
`
`material in-between two dielectric layers (claims 1 & 18).
`
`Roberts teaches a communications cable (Figs 1-24), wherein the cable has a
`
`conductive barrier tape comprising an aluminum layer coated on both sides by a
`
`dielectric layer such as mylar, for the purpose of reducing crosstalk between adjacent
`
`conductors, which result from barrier tapes only having one dielectric layer laminated to
`
`aluminum (Col 3, lines 32-51). Specifically, with respect to claims 1
`
`& 18, Roberts
`
`discloses a cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a plurality of conductors (14), wherein the
`
`conductors (14, Fig 4) may be longitudinally wrapped (Fig 1) or helically wrapped (Fig 4)
`
`with a barrier tape (5, Fig 5), wherein the barrier tape (5) comprises a continuous
`
`conductive material (i.e. aluminum, 6) contained on both sides with a layer of dielectric
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`material (i.e. mylar, 5a & 5a, respectively, Paragraph 47), wherein the conductive
`
`material (6) extends to lateral edges of the dielectric materials (5a, Fig 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 Clark to comprise the barrier tape
`
`configuration having two dielectric layers as taught by Roberts because Roberts teach
`
`that such a configuration provides a communications cable (Figs 1-24) that reduces
`
`crosstalk between adjacent conductors, which results from barrier tapes only having
`
`one dielectric layer laminated to aluminum (Col 3, lines 32-51).
`
`13.
`
`Claims 4, 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Clark (Pub Num 2006/0169478) in view of Roberts (Pub Num 3,622,683, as
`
`applied to claims 1, 3, and 18 above (herein referred to as modified Clark), further in
`
`view of Nordin et al (Pat Num 2012/0222883, herein referred to as Nordin). Modified
`
`Clark discloses a communications cable (Figs 2-3) that may be exposed to force, stress,
`
`rough handling, and other disturbances present in mechanically dynamic environments
`
`(Paragraph 2), as disclosed above with respect to claims 1, 3, 10, and 18 above.
`
`While modified Clark teaches that the barrier tape may be helically wrapped (see
`
`Roberts, Fig 4), Clark doesn't necessarily disclose the barrier tape being helically
`
`twisted at a second angle (claim 4), nor the second angle being equal to the first angle
`
`(claim 5), nor the terminal portion of each arm being wider than a middle portion of the
`
`arm (claim 14), nor the method of helically twisting the conductive barrier tape at an
`
`angle varying between a
`
`first and second angle (claim 19).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`Nordin teaches a fixed tape control high performance data cable (Figs 1-5) that
`
`reduces crosstalk (Paragraph 5). With respect to claim 4-5, Nordin discloses a
`
`fixed
`
`tape control high performance data cable (22, Fig 2) comprising a plurality of twisted
`
`pairs of insulated conductors (26); a
`
`filler (28) comprising a plurality of arms (portions
`
`extending from the center) separating each twisted pair of insulated conductors (26),
`
`wherein each arm (portions extending from the center) having a terminal portion (portion
`
`extending away from arms; one located at numerical 23); a conductive barrier tape (32)
`
`surrounding the filler (28) and plurality of twisted pairs of insulated conductors (26); and
`
`a jacket (33) surrounding the conductive barrier tape (32); wherein the filler (28) is
`
`configured in a helical twist at a first angle (Fig 5) and wherein the conductive barrier
`
`tape (32) is configured in a helical twist at the first angle (Paragraph 25, Fig 5). With
`
`respect to claim 14, Nordin teaches that the terminal portion of the arm (portion
`
`extending away from arms; one located at numerical 23) is wider than the middle
`
`portion of the arm (Fig 2). With respect to claim 16, Nordin discloses a method wherein
`
`the helically twisting the filler (28) at a first angle and helically twisting the conductive
`
`barrier tape (32) at a second angle, wherein the second angle (Fig 2) is equal to the first
`
`angle (Fig 2, Paragraph 25).
`
`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 Clark to comprise the filler
`
`and barrier tape configuration having a
`
`first twist angle equal to a second twist angle as
`
`taught by Nordin because Nordin teaches that such a configuration provides a high
`
`performance data cable (Figs 1-5) that reduces crosstalk (Paragraph 5).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`14.
`
`Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark
`
`(Pub Num 2006/0169478) in view of Roberts (Pub Num 3,622,683) and Nordin (Pat
`
`Num 2012/0222883), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 above (herein referred to as
`
`modified Clark), further in view of Lindstrom et al (Pub Num 2012/00227998, herein
`
`referred to as Lindstrom). Modified Clark discloses a communications cable (Figs 2-3)
`
`that may be exposed to force, stress, rough handling, and other disturbances present in
`
`mechanically dynamic environments (Paragraph 2), as disclosed above with respect to
`
`claims 1, 3, and 4 above.
`
`While modified Clark teaches that the barrier tape may be helically wrapped (see
`
`Roberts, Fig 4), Clark doesn't necessarily disclose the barrier tape being helically
`
`twisted at a second angle, wherein the second angle varying along the length of the
`
`cable (claim 6), nor the second angle varying between a
`
`first angle and third angle
`
`(claim 7), nor the second angle varying between a
`
`first value, less than the first angle
`
`and a second value, greater than the first angle (claim 8),
`
`Lindstrom teaches a cable (Figs 1-6) comprising a barrier tape that is applied at
`
`angles that differ between different wraps such that the barrier tape lay length varies
`
`along the length of the cable thereby cancelling out some of the imbalances generated
`
`by overlaps (Paragraph 13) thereby improving the crosstalk performance by reducing
`
`electrical noise from other signals transmitted and reducing electromagnetic radiation
`
`from the cable that may interfere with other electrical devices, while also eliminating
`
`capacitive coupling from other electrical sources (Paragraph 35). Specifically, with
`
`respect to claims 6-8, Lindstrom teaches a cable (200) comprising a plurality of twisted
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`pairs of insulated conductors (Fig 2), wherein the cable (200) comprises a barrier tape
`
`(115) being helically twisted at an application angle (©, Fig 1) varying between a second
`
`angle (Qm)) and a third angle (Om 42), wherein the second angle (©in)) comprises the
`
`first angle (Gin + 1)) Minus a predetermined value (if n=1, then second angle= O(n41-1)=
`
`©(n) and wherein the third angle (jm + 2)) comprises the first angle (O(n + 1)) plus a
`
`predetermined value (if n=1, then second angle= O(n41+1)= Oin+2)) and the application
`
`angle (©) varies from a second angle (©(n)) and the third angle (Gm « 2)) along the length
`
`of the cable (200) longer than the length of one helical twist of the conductors (Fig 1).
`
`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 helically wrapping of the barrier tape of
`
`modified Clark to comprise the varying angle configuration as taught by Lindstrom
`
`because Lindstrom teaches that such a configuration provides a cable thereby
`
`cancelling out some of the imbalances generated by overlaps (Paragraph 13) thereby
`
`improving the crosstalk performance by reducing electrical noise from other signals
`
`transmitted and reducing electromagnetic radiation from the cable that may interfere
`
`with other electrical devices, while also eliminating capacitive coupling from other
`
`electrical sources (Paragraph 35) and it appears that Nordin would perform equally well
`
`with the modification.
`
`15.
`
`Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (Pub
`
`Num 2006/0169478) in view of Roberts (Pub Num 3,622,683, as applied to claims 1 and
`
`10 above (herein referred to as modified Clark), further in view of Blouin et al (Pat Num
`
`6,365,836, herein referred to as Blouin). Modified Clark discloses a communications
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`cable (Figs 2-3) that may be exposed to force, stress, rough handling, and other
`
`disturbances present in mechanically dynamic environments (Paragraph 2), as
`
`disclosed above with respect to claims 1 and 10 above.
`
`While modified Clark teaches that filler comprising arms, Clark doesn't
`
`necessarily disclose the terminal portion of each arm having a trapezoidal profile (claim
`
`15).
`
`Blouin teaches high performance data cable (Figs 3-4) having improved
`
`crosstalk performance (Col 1, lines 9-14). Specifically, with respect to claim 15, Blouin
`
`teaches discloses a high performance data cable (Fig 4) comprising a plurality of
`
`twisted pairs of insulated conductors (407); a
`
`filler (401) comprising a plurality of arms
`
`(402) separating each twisted pair of insulated conductors (407), wherein each arm
`
`(402) having a terminal portion (403), wherein the terminal portion (403) of the arm
`
`(402) has a trapezoidal profile (Fig 4).
`
`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 helically wrapping of the barrier tape of
`
`modified Clark to comprise terminal portions having a trapezoidal profile as taught by
`
`Blouin because Blouin teaches that such a configuration provides a cable having
`
`improved crosstalk performance (Col 1, lines 9-14) and since it has been held that a
`
`change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application
`
`of obvious attributes from a prior art.
`
`[In re Soan-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8,
`
`1982) 215 USPQ 835.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`16.
`
`Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (Pub
`
`Num 2006/0169478) in view of Roberts (Pub Num 3,622,683) and Nordin (Pat Num
`
`2012/0222883), as applied to claim 18 above (herein referred to as modified Clark),
`
`further in view of Lindstrom et al (Pub Num 2012/00227998, herein referred to as
`
`Lindstrom). Modified Clark discloses a communications cable (Figs 2-3) that may be
`
`exposed to force, stress, rough handling, and other disturbances present in
`
`mechanically dynamic environments (Paragraph 2), as disclosed above with respect to
`
`claim 18 above.
`
`Modified Clark doesn’t necessarily disclose method of twisting the barrier tape
`
`layer varying the application angle between a
`
`first angle and a second angle (claim 20).
`
`Lindstrom teaches a cable (Figs 1-6) comprising a barrier tape that is applied at
`
`angles that differ between different wraps such that the barrier tape lay length varies
`
`along the length of the cable thereby cancelling out some of the imbalances generated
`
`by overlaps (Paragraph 13) thereby improving the crosstalk performance by reducing
`
`electrical noise from other signals transmitted and reducing electromagnetic radiation
`
`from the cable that may interfere with other electrical devices, while also eliminating
`
`capacitive coupling from other electrical sources (Paragraph 35). Specifically, with
`
`respect to claim 20, Lindstrom teaches a cable (200) comprising a plurality of twisted
`
`pairs of insulated conductors (Fig 2), wherein the cable (200) comprises a barrier tape
`
`(115) being helically twisted at an application angle (©, Fig 1) varying between a
`
`first
`
`angle (Qi)) and a second angle (©(n + 2).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`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 helically wrapping of the barrier tape of
`
`modified Clark to comprise the varying angle configuration as taught by Lindstrom
`
`because Lindstrom teaches that such a configuration provides a cable thereby
`
`cancelling out some of the imbalances generated by overlaps (Paragraph 13) thereby
`
`improving the crosstalk performance by reducing electrical noise from other signals
`
`transmitted and reducing electromagnetic radiation from the cable that may interfere
`
`with other electrical devices, while also eliminating capacitive coupling from other
`
`electrical sources (Paragraph 35) and it appears that Nordin would perform equally well
`
`with the modification.
`
`17.
`
`Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordin
`
`(Pub Num 2012/0222883) in view of Lindstrom et al (Pub Num 2012/00227998, herein
`
`referred to as Lindstrom), as applied to claim 18 above (herein referred to as modified
`
`Nordin), further in view of Smith Corp. (GB Pat Num 988,789, herein referred to as
`
`Smith). Nordin discloses a fixed tape control high performance data cable (Figs 1-5)
`
`that reduces crosstalk (Paragraph 5), as disclosed above with respect to claim 17 & 18.
`
`However, modified Nordin doesn’t specifically disclose feeding the barrier tape
`
`tangent to a roller and moving the roller bidirectional along a track in a direction at an
`
`angle to the length of the cable (claim 20).
`
`Smith discloses a method of applying a barrier tape to an elongated object (i.e.
`
`pipe) comprising feeding the tape (2) to a distribution roller (44) attached to a pivot
`
`mechanism that includes a bracket (51), wherein the roller (44) is pivoted to apply the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`tape (2) around an elongated device while varying the helix angle of the tape (2, Page
`
`4, lines 9-17).
`
`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 helically wrapping of the barrier tape of
`
`modified Nordin to comprise method of feeding the tape to a distribution roller attached
`
`to a pivot mechanism to vary the angle configuration as taught by Smith because Smith
`
`teaches that such a configuration is known in the art for providing winding of tape at
`
`various angles (Page 4, lines 9-17) and it appears that modified Nordin would perform
`
`equally well with the modification.
`
`Conclusion
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`Communication
`
`19.
`
`= 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-F_ 8:30am-6:00 pm (alternate
`
`Fridays off).
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571) 272-2342 or (571) 272-2800
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/610,504
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 2847
`
`ext 31. 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 Priva