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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 8/12/2024 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 & 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryeczek (US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0170739) in view of Potyrailo et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2005/0109984).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryeczek discloses an electrical device comprising:
a body comprising a thermochromic material (i.e. layer of visually reacting material 146/164/174 which includes thermochromic ink, die, paint, or polymer), a composition of said thermochromic material comprising:
a base polymer material (i.e. polymer such as principal elastic electric insulation 104); 36WO 2018/129054PCT/US20181012198
a temperature sensitive material (i.e. thermochromic ink or thermochromic material 102 impregnated into insulation 104), that changes, in response to a temperature change of the body, a color of said thermochromic material from a first color at a first temperature and a second color at a second temperature, said second color differing from said first color; and
a visual indicator (i.e. lettering in section 154, colored strip in section 156, background of coating in section 158, bands on the cable jacket in section 152, understandable language 176 printed on with normal ink.) supported by said body (i.e. embedded in a groove or embedded into the transparent protective layer rather than layered atop the insulation), said visual indicator having a color substantially matching said first color of said thermochromic material at both the first temperature and the second temperature,
wherein said visual indicator becomes visible when said thermochromic material changes to said second color to indicate a change in temperature of the electrical device (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0044, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079). Visually reacting materials which are sensitive to different temperatures or some physical component of electrical energy whether directly or indirectly, are separated by separations as at 150, so that different sections of different types of visually reacting material will indicate increases or decreased in temperature, or increments of electrical faults, or overload conditions by movement of the visually activated section of the cable. In FIG. 17, the insulation 174 may be impregnated and or covered with a visual reactive material, then an understandable language 176 printed on with normal ink, being both the same color, again phrases would be camouflaged until a predetermined electrical and/or thermal condition was to occur for activation of 176 phrases this also makes a camouflage means.
Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose a stabilizer, wherein the composition has a weight percentage of the stabilizer relative to a total weight of the composition, wherein the stabilizer is present in a sufficient amount to enhance a temporal responsiveness of the temperature sensitive material in visually changing from the first color and attaining the second color in response to the temperature change.
Potyrailo teaches a stabilizer (i.e. heat stabilizer, light stabilizer), wherein the composition (i.e. polymer which comprises a substrate polymer and a thermochromic compound) has a weight percentage (i.e. 0.01 weight percent to about 0.1 weight percent) of the stabilizer relative to a total weight of the composition, wherein the stabilizer is present in a sufficient amount to enhance a temporal responsiveness of the temperature sensitive material in visually changing from the first color and attaining the second color in response to the temperature change (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a weight percentage or sufficient amount that provides the enhancement claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, due to the fact that the thermochromic compositions of Potyrailo contain heat and light stabilizers within the weight percentage/ratio range disclosed and later claimed by the Applicant in dependent claims, one skilled in the art would expect the same enhancement in responsiveness that the Applicant claims.
Examiner notes that “wherein the stabilizer is present in a sufficient amount to enhance a temporal responsiveness of the temperature sensitive material in visually changing from the first color and attaining the second color in response to the temperature change” is a functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Ryeczek discloses that said second color is semi-transparent (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0032, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0073, 0077-0079). Ryeczek discloses that the visually reacting thermochromic material can change from dark/opaque at normal operating conditions to having a level of transparency at abnormal conditions. The term “transparent” as used in the disclosure of Ryeczek can be understood to mean clear, color-tinted, or semitransparent as described in Paragraph 0035.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryeczek discloses that said visual indicator comprises text or pictorial image (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079). Color changes or lettering or words which suddenly appear and become visible.
Regarding Claim 13, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said stabilizer enhances stability performance of the thermochromic polymer composition.
Potyrailo teaches that said stabilizer (i.e. heat stabilizer, light stabilizer) enhances stability performance of the thermochromic polymer composition (i.e. polymer which comprises a substrate polymer and a thermochromic compound) (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 29-31 include the limitations of Claim 13 (the process for preparing the thermochromic polymer composition, forming the electrical device from the composition through molding) and are analyzed as such with respect to that claim. The Applicant’s attention is especially drawn to Paragraphs 0101-0110 of Potyrailo.
Regarding Claim 14, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the stabilizer comprises one or more of a heat stabilizer and a light stabilizer.
Potyrailo teaches that the stabilizer comprises one or more of a heat stabilizer and a light stabilizer (i.e. heat stabilizer, light stabilizer) (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 15, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the weight ratio of the temperature sensitive material to the stabilizer is from 1:0.1 to 1:10.
Potyrailo teaches that the weight ratio of the temperature sensitive material to the stabilizer is from 1:0.1 to 1:10 (i.e. 0.01 weight percent to about 0.1 weight percent) (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek in the weight ratio range claimed, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the base polymer composition comprises any one of polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA, nylon), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, Teflon), poly(ethene-co-tetrafluoroethene) (ETFE, Tefzel), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), poly(chlorotrifluoethylene-ethylene) (ECTFE), polyethylene (PE), acetal, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET). polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), copolymers thereof, or combination thereof.
Potyrailo teaches that the base polymer composition comprises any one of polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA, nylon), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, Teflon), poly(ethene-co-tetrafluoroethene) (ETFE, Tefzel), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), poly(chlorotrifluoethylene-ethylene) (ECTFE), polyethylene (PE), acetal, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET). polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), copolymers thereof, or combination thereof (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to use polymers such as the ones claimed as the base polymer. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such polymers in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 17, Ryeczek discloses that the temperature sensitive material comprises one or more temperature sensitive materials with an irreversible, a semi- reversible or a reversible color change. (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0071, 0079; Claim 8 & 16).
Regarding Claim 18, Ryeczek discloses that the one or more temperature sensitive materials with a semi-reversible or reversible color change have one or more threshold temperatures ranging from about -10°C to about 70°C, and wherein the one or more temperature sensitive materials with an irreversible color change have one or more threshold temperatures ranging from about -40°C to about 300°C (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0069, 0071, 0079; Claim 8 & 16).
Regarding Claim 19, Ryeczek discloses that the temperature sensitive material comprises one temperature sensitive material with a threshold temperature of about 49 °C (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0069, 0071, 0079; Claim 8 & 16).
Regarding Claim 20, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the heat stabilizer comprises any one or more of a hindered phenol antioxidant, a phosphite ester antioxidant and a thiosynergist material.
Potyrailo teaches that the heat stabilizer comprises any one or more of a hindered phenol antioxidant, a phosphite ester antioxidant and a thiosynergist material (i.e. phosphite heat stabilizer, hindered phenol antioxidant) (Abstract; Paragraph 0042, 0047, 0091, 0092, 0097-0099, 0128).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as the heat/thermal stabilizers claimed in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 21 Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the hindered phenol antioxidant comprises any one or more of pentaerythritol tetrakys 3-(3,5-ditert- butyl -4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate, dibutylhydroxyphenylpropionic acid stearyl ester, 2,6-Di-tert-butyl- 4-methylphenol, calcium bis(monoethyl (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxylbenzyl)phosphonate); wherein the phosphite ester antioxidant comprises any one or more of tris(2,4-di-t- butylphenyl)phosphite, and bis-(2,4-di-tert-butyl-pheny)- phosphitcrythritol diphosphite; or wherein the thiosynergist materials comprises 2,4 -bis(dodecylthiomethyl)-6-methylphenol, 2- Methyl-4,6-bis((octylthio) methyl)phenol.
Potyrailo teaches that that the hindered phenol antioxidant comprises any one or more of pentaerythritol tetrakys 3-(3,5-ditert- butyl -4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate, dibutylhydroxyphenylpropionic acid stearyl ester, 2,6-Di-tert-butyl- 4-methylphenol, calcium bis(monoethyl (3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxylbenzyl)phosphonate); wherein the phosphite ester antioxidant comprises any one or more of tris(2,4-di-t- butylphenyl)phosphite, and bis-(2,4-di-tert-butyl-pheny)- phosphitcrythritol diphosphite; or wherein the thiosynergist materials comprises 2,4 -bis(dodecylthiomethyl)-6-methylphenol, 2- Methyl-4,6-bis((octylthio) methyl)phenol (i.e. tris(2,4-di-t-butylphenyl)phosphite, hindered phenol antioxidant) (Abstract; Paragraph 0042, 0047, 0091, 0092, 0097-0099, 0128).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as the heat/thermal stabilizers claimed in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 22, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the light stabilizer comprises any one or more of an ultraviolet light screening agent, an ultraviolet absorbent, a light quenching agent, and a radical scavenger.
Potyrailo teaches that the light stabilizer comprises any one or more of an ultraviolet light screening agent (i.e. zinc oxide), an ultraviolet absorbent (i.e. UV absorbers), a light quenching agent, and a radical scavenger (Abstract; Paragraph 0042, 0047, 0091, 0092, 0097-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as the heat/thermal stabilizers claimed in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 23, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that the ultraviolet light screening agent comprises any one or more of carbon black, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide, wherein the ultraviolet absorbent comprises benzophenone, benzotriazole, and triazine; wherein the light quenching agent comprises nickel compounds; wherein the radical scavenger comprises any one or more of bis (2,2,6,6- tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate, benzoic acid (2,2,6,6- tetramethyl-4- piperidine) ester.
Potyrailo teaches that the ultraviolet light screening agent comprises any one or more of carbon black, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide (i.e. zinc oxide), wherein the ultraviolet absorbent comprises benzophenone, benzotriazole, and triazine (i.e. 2-(2-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)benzotriazole, 2-(2-hydroxy-5-tert-octylpheny- l)-benzotriazole and 2-hydroxy-4-n-octoxy benzophenone); wherein the light quenching agent comprises nickel compounds; wherein the radical scavenger comprises any one or more of bis (2,2,6,6- tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate, benzoic acid (2,2,6,6- tetramethyl-4- piperidine) ester (Abstract; Paragraph 0042, 0047, 0079, 0091, 0092, 0097-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as the heat/thermal stabilizers claimed in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 24, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that a total amount of the temperature sensitive material is from about 1 wt% to about 30 wt %, based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a masterbatch.
Potyrailo teaches that a total amount of the temperature sensitive material is from about 1 wt% to about 30 wt % (i.e. 0.005 % to 10% by weight), based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a masterbatch (Abstract; Paragraph 0059-0062, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to add the temperature sensitive material or thermochromic compound to the thermochromic polymer composition within the weight % range claimed in order to have an amount sufficient to be detected. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the thermochromic compound in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek in the weight % range claimed, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to have an amount sufficient to be detected. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 25, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that a total amount of the temperature sensitive material is from about 0.01 wt% to about 20%, based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a composition formed from a masterbatch.
Potyrailo teaches that a total amount of the temperature sensitive material is from about 0.01 wt% to about 20% (i.e. 0.005 % to 10% by weight), based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a masterbatch (Abstract; Paragraph 0059-0062, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to add the temperature sensitive material or thermochromic compound to the thermochromic polymer composition within the weight % range claimed in order to have an amount sufficient to be detected. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the thermochromic compound in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek in the weight % range claimed, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to have an amount sufficient to be detected. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 26, Ryeczek in view of does not explicitly disclose that a total amount of the stabilizer is from about 1 wt% to about 30wt%, based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a masterbatch.
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek in view of Potyrailo in the weight ratio range claimed in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 27, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that a total amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.1 wt% to about 10%, based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a composition formed from a masterbatch.
Potyrailo teaches that a total amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.1 wt% to about 10% (i.e. 0.1 weight percent), based on the total weight of the thermochromic polymer composition as a composition formed from a masterbatch (Abstract; Paragraph 0031-0034, 0041, 0042, 0047, 0048, 0053, 0069, 0071, 0077, 0079, 0091-0099).
Potyrailo teaches that it is well known in the art of thermochromic polymer compositions to include stabilizers such as heat/thermal stabilizers and light/UV stabilizers in order to create a composition that exhibits high robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a stabilizer in the thermochromic polymer composition of Ryeczek in the weight ratio range claimed, as taught by Potyrailo, in order to improve the robustness against ambient environmental conditions and temperature stability of the composition. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 28, Ryeczek discloses that the electric device comprises any one of a cable tie, a cable connector, a terminal connector, a splice connector, and a cable jacket (i.e. cable jacket) (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0025-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryeczek (US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0170739) in view of Potyrailo et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2005/0109984), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucht et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0248224).
Regarding Claim 4, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said thermochromic material changes to said second color in 1 second to 10 seconds once the thermochromic material reaches said second temperature.
Lucht teaches that said thermochromic material (i.e. thermal/thermo chromic indicator material) changes to said second color (i.e. high temperature color or low temperature color) in 1 second to 10 seconds (i.e. time period greater than 2 seconds) once the thermochromic material reaches said second temperature (Abstract; Paragraph 0003-0007, 0016, 0021, 0028, 0030, 0031, 0039-0042).
Although Ryeczek is silent on the specific time period for the color change, Lucht teaches that it is well known in the art for thermochromic materials to exhibit a change in color within the time range claimed in order to provide a timely visual indicator of a fault, overheating, and/or temperature change. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the thermochromic material in Ryeczek modified by Potyrailo to change color within the time range claimed, as taught by Lucht, in order to provide a timely visual indicator of a fault, overheating, and/or temperature change. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5-9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryeczek (US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0170739) in view of Potyrailo et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2005/0109984), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulsey (US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0121171).
Regarding Claim 5, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said body is a cable tie comprising:
an elongate strap;
a head attached to a first end of said strap, said head having an aperture formed therein; and
a locking device disposed in said aperture of said head, said locking device being configured to permit a second end of said strap opposite said head to be inserted through said head aperture in a first direction and being further configured to prevent movement of said second end of said strap from said head aperture in a second direction opposite said first direction,
wherein said visual indicator is embedded or encapsulated within a portion of at least one of said strap or said head.
Hulsey teaches that that said body is a cable tie (i.e. cable tie 51) comprising:
an elongate strap (i.e. plastic strap 53);
a head (i.e. connection head 59 w/ a through-slot with a cooperative locking structure) attached to a first end of said strap, said head having an aperture (i.e. through-slot) formed therein; and
a locking device (i.e. a cooperative locking structure) disposed in said aperture of said head, said locking device being configured to permit a second end of said strap (i.e. first end 57) opposite said head to be inserted through said head aperture in a first direction and being further configured to prevent movement (i.e. through engagement of grooves or ribs 55) of said second end of said strap from said head aperture in a second direction opposite said first direction,
wherein said visual indicator (i.e. color changing material) is embedded or encapsulated within a portion of at least one of said strap or said head (Fig. 4 & 5; Abstract; Paragraph 0045-0048). The color changing material may be an additive to the plastic material forming the cable tie 51, and thus embedded, and/or the color changing material may be formed as a layer over all of, or a portion of, the cable tie 51.
Hulsey teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide a color changing cable tie such as the one claimed, in order to hold a plurality of cables together while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. Hulsey teaches this structure/configuration as an alternative or addition to cable jackets including the same color changing functionality. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a structure in Ryeczek, as taught by Hulsey, in order to hold a plurality of cables together while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. The court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding Claim 6, Ryeczek in view of Hulsey discloses that said visual indicator comprises text or a pictorial (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079). Color changes or lettering or words which suddenly appear and become visible.
Regarding Claim 7, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said body is a terminal connector comprising:
an electrically conductive component having a first end adapted for crimped electrical connection to a conductor wire and a second end opposite said first end; and
an electrically insulating sleeve configured for coupling to said first end of said electrically conductive component via a crimped connection,
wherein said visual indicator is embedded or encapsulated within said sleeve.
Hulsey teaches that said body is a terminal connector (i.e. connector 71) comprising:
an electrically conductive component (i.e. crimp style connector) having a first end adapted for crimped electrical connection to a conductor wire and a second end opposite said first end; and
an electrically insulating sleeve (i.e. plastic ring 73) configured for coupling to said first end of said electrically conductive component via a crimped connection,
wherein said visual indicator (i.e. color changing material) is embedded or encapsulated within said sleeve (Fig. 4-12; Abstract; Paragraph 0045-0062).
Hulsey teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide a color changing crimp style connector such as the one claimed, in order to connect a cable while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. Hulsey teaches this structure/configuration as an alternative or addition to cable jackets including the same color changing functionality. The color changing material may be an additive to the plastic material forming the cable tie 51, and thus embedded, and/or the color changing material may be formed as a layer over all of, or a portion of, the cable tie 51. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a structure in Ryeczek, as taught by Hulsey, in order to connect a cable while together while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. The court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding Claim 8, Ryeczek in view of Hulsey discloses that said visual indicator comprises text or a pictorial image (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079). Color changes or lettering or words which suddenly appear and become visible.
Regarding Claim 9, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a shape of an enclosed ring.
Hulsey teaches that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a shape of an enclosed ring (Fig. 6; Abstract; Paragraph 0045-0062).
Hulsey teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide a color changing crimp style connector such as the one claimed, in order to connect a cable while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. Hulsey teaches this structure/configuration as an alternative or addition to cable jackets including the same color changing functionality. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a structure in Ryeczek, as taught by Hulsey, in order to connect a cable while together while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. The court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 11, Ryeczek does not explicitly disclose that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a tubular barrel shape for housing of a conductor wire.
Hulsey teaches that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a tubular barrel shape for housing of a conductor wire (Fig. 6; Abstract; Paragraph 0045-0062).
Hulsey teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide a color changing crimp style connector such as the one claimed that has a tubular barrel shape for housing of a conductor wire, in order to connect a cable while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. Hulsey teaches this structure/configuration as an alternative or addition to cable jackets including the same color changing functionality. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide such a structure in Ryeczek, as taught by Hulsey, in order to connect a cable while together while indicating a temperature change with a color changing material changing color in response to a change in temperature. The court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 12, Ryeczek in view of Hulsey discloses that said sleeve comprises a colored stripe for indicating a size of the crimped electrical connection of the second end of the conductor wire (Fig. 15-17; Abstract; Paragraph 0007, 0026-0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0063, 0068, 0069, 0077-0079). Color changes or lettering or words can include information, such as size, about the cable or connection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryeczek (US Patent Application Publication # 2002/0170739) in view of Potyrailo et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2005/0109984) and Hulsey (US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0121171) and further in view of Melni (US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0097948).
Regarding Claim 10, Ryeczek in view of Potyrailo & Hulsey does not explicitly disclose that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a shape of a fork.
Melni teaches that said second end of said electrically conductive component has a shape of a fork (Fig. 1, 2, 3-7, 16, 19-26, 30-32, 34; Abstract; Paragraph 0033).
Melni teaches that it is well known in the art of electrical connectors to have a fork-shaped end in order to facilitate the connection. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a fork-shaped connector at one on of the connector of Ryeczek in view of Hulsey, as taught by Melni, in order to facilitate connection.The court held that the configuration/shape of the claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration/shape of the claimed container was significant.). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2021 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have not substantially changed from those presented before even though the claim language has slightly changed. As stated in the previous Office Action, the Applicant argues that, in light of the amendments, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations in regard to a stabilizer in a weight percentage/sufficient amount which enhances a responsiveness, now "temporal", of the temperature sensitive material in visually attaining the second color in response to the temperature change. Due to the fact that the thermochromic compositions of Potyrailo contain heat and light stabilizers within the weight percentage/ratio range disclosed and also claimed by the Applicant in dependent claims, one skilled in the art would expect the same claimed enhancement in responsiveness in the composition of the combination of Ryeczek & Potyrailo. One skilled in the art would expect similar or equivalent physical/chemical properties from a composition which comprises the same components as a claimed composition. Therefore, the composition resulting from the combination of Ryeczek & Potyrailo would necessarily have the claimed “enhanced” physical/chemical property. As stated above, the Examiner notes that “wherein the stabilizer is present in a sufficient amount to enhance a temporal responsiveness of the temperature sensitive material in visually changing from the first color and attaining the second color in response to the temperature change” is a functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the Potyrailo secondary reference teaches away from the claimed subject matter, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Potyrailo mentions that it is possible to have an embodiment where the thermochromic compound is present in an amount that does not provide a visually retrievable or observable thermochromic response, it is referring to said thermochromic response or color change not being apparent to the unaided human eye due to the use of fluorescent dyes in which changes are meant to be detected by spectroscopy. However, that is just one possible embodiment and the rejection is based on the combination of Ryeczek & Potyrailo. Furthermore, Potyrailo is clearly concerned with obtaining a “more rapid switch from the ‘cold’ state to the ‘hot’ state” by using specific concentrations of the thermochromic compound and a heat stabilizer. Those teachings, in combination with the teachings of the Ryeczek primary reference, arrive at the claimed subject matter in Claim 1, even without taking into account the functional language comments made above. The Examiner also directs the Applicant’s attention to the Patent Board Decision of 6/10/2024.
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 on 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 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights