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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are each amended to recite the skin depth and the radial velocity values at certain frequencies. However, such features are not supported in the original specification. In the original specification, Table 1 and 2 show the skin depth equals to 2.09 or 2.67 mm and the velocity equals to 13.12 or 16.81 m/s, at a frequency of 1000 Hz. Claims 1, 13, and 20 each recites that at a frequency of 1000 Hz, the skin depth is between 8.8 and 29.5 mm and the velocity is between 55.9 and 185.6 m/s.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, and 24 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (5109140) in view of Grensing et al. (2016/0276077).
Nguyen (Fig. 1) discloses a cable comprising a first insulated electrical wire with two ends and comprising a first electrically conductive metal (1) with a conductivity; and a second insulated electrical wire with two ends and comprising a second electrically conductive metal (2), wherein the first and second metals each has a relative magnetic permeability, and wherein the cable (Fig. 1) is devoid of any ferromagnetic foil surrounding the first and second wires (re-claim 1). Nguyen also discloses that the first and second wires are physically separated and independent from each other (re-claim 9); the first and second wires are not encased in a single insulating body but are connected by maintaining a static distance therebetween (Fig. 1) (re-claim 11); transmitting audio-range signals from the first end to the second end (re-claim 13); the first metal is physically separated and independent from the second metal (re-claim 18); the first and second metals are formed in round shape (re-claim 19).
Nguyen does not disclose the first metal and the second metal each having a conductivity less than 5.5% IACS, and the relative magnetic permeability of each metal between 0 and 2 (re-claims 1, 13, 15-17, 20, and 21).
Grensing et al. discloses an electrical wire ([0133], wire, connector, or electrode) comprising a metal with a conductivity less than 5.5% IACS and a relative magnetic permeability between 0 and 2 ([0129]) (re-claims 1, 13, and 20-21). Although not disclosed in Grensing et al., it is known in the art that electrical conductivity values (in IACS) are typically reported at 20°C, see application's specification, paragraph [0053] and see also https://www.nde-ed.org/Physics/Materials/Physical_Chemical/Electrical.xhtml.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the metal taught by Grensing et al. for the first and second metals of Nguyen since such metal has excellent wear resistance and retains its strength at elevated temperatures ([0003]).
It is noted that since the modified cable of Nguyen comprises structure and material as claimed; it is an improved, signal carrying, electrically conductive cable having reduced frequency dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein; the predetermined relative permeability value of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a secondary electromagnetic wave that penetrates the first conductive metal nearly radially and travels at significantly lower speeds than a speed of a primary electromagnetic wave along the first metal; the predetermined conductivity of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a skin effect over a human audio frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz; the combined permeability value and conductivity value can reduce dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of the frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein; the first and second insulated wires can be respectively configured to be positive and and negative signal lines in an audio cable; the skin depth and the radial velocity will have the values as claimed in the indicated reference frequencies (re-claims 1, 13, and 20), the insulated first and second wires in the modified cable are not encased in a single insulating body but are connected by maintaining a static distance therebetween (re-claim 11), and the second wire can be a neutral wire since it comprises structure and material as claimed (re-claim 15).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (6791025) in view of Grensing et al.
Devine (Fig. 5) discloses a cable comprising a first insulated electrical wire with two ends and comprising a first electrically conductive metal (210) with a conductivity; and a second insulated electrical wire with two ends and comprising a second electrically conductive metal (215), wherein the first and second metals each has a relative magnetic permeability, and wherein the cable (Fig. 5) is devoid of any ferromagnetic foil surrounding the first and second wires (re-claim 1). Devine also discloses that the first and second wires are physically separated and independent from each other (re-claim 9); ends of the first and second wires have connectors (Figs 1 and 3) that are terminated in bare metal or other audio connector known in the art (re-claim 12); transmitting audio-range signals from the first end to the second end (re-claim 13); the first electric wire is physically separated and independent from the second electric wire (re-claim 18); the first and second metals are formed in round shape (re-claim 19).
Devine does not disclose the first metal and the second metal having a conductivity less than 5.5% IACS, and the relative magnetic permeability of the first metal between 0 and 2 (re-claims 1, 13, and 15-17).
Grensing et al. discloses an electrical wire ([0133], wire, connector, or electrode) comprising a metal with a conductivity less than 5.5% IACS and a relative magnetic permeability between 0 and 2 ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the metal taught by Grensing et al. for the first and second metals of Devine since such metal has excellent wear resistance and retains its strength at elevated temperatures ([0003]).
It is noted that since the modified cable of Devine comprises structure and material as claimed; it is an improved, signal carrying, electrically conductive cable having reduced frequency dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of the frequency of audio-range signals conducted therein; the predetermined relative permeability value of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a secondary electromagnetic wave that penetrates the first conductive metal nearly radially and travels at significantly lower speeds than a speed of a primary electromagnetic wave along the first metal; the predetermined conductivity of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a skin effect over a human audio frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz; the combined permeability value and conductivity value can reduce dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of the frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein; the first and second insulated wires can be respectively configured to be positive and and negative signal lines in an audio cable; the second wire can be a neutral wire; the skin depth and the radial velocity will have the values as claimed in the indicated reference frequencies (re-claims 1, 13, and 15).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Re-claims 20 and 21, Devine discloses a method of fabricating an electrically conductive cable comprising: preparing first and second lengths (210, 215) of electrical conductive material comprising an electrically conductive metal with a conductive value; and attaching a connector at each end of the electrical wire. Devine does not disclose the electrically conductive metal having a relative magnetic permeability value which is between 0 and 2 and having the conductivity value which is between 0 and 5.5% IACS at 20°C. Grensing et al. discloses an electrical wire ([0133], wire, connector, or electrode) comprising a non-ferrous metal with a conductivity less than 5.5% IACS and a relative magnetic permeability between 0 and 2 ([0129]). Although not disclosed in Grensing et al., it is known in the art that electrical conductivity values (in IACS) are typically reported at 20°C, see application's specification, paragraph [0053] and see also https://www.nde-ed.org/Physics/Materials/Physical_Chemical/Electrical.xhtml. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the metal taught by Grensing et al. for the electrically conductive metal of Devine since such metal has excellent wear resistance and retains its strength at elevated temperatures ([0003]). It is noted that since the modified method of Devine comprises steps, material, and structure as claimed; it is a method for fabricating an improved, signal carrying, electrically conductive cable having a reduced frequency dependent energy loss and phase errors as a function of a frequency of audio-range signals conducted therein, the relative magnetic permeability and conductivity values would reduce a distortion due to a secondary electromagnetic wave that penetrates the conductor nearly radially and travels at significantly lower speeds than a speed of a primary electromagnetic wave along the conductor, and the conductivity value is much lower than a conductivity value of copper, wherein the lower conductivity value would reduce a distortion due to a skin effect over a human audio frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz; and the combined permeability value and conductivity value can reduce dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of the frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein.
Claims 1, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telley et al. (8404976) in view of Izumida et al. (2007/0017691).
Re-claim 1, Telley et al. discloses an electrically conductive cable (Fig. 1B) comprising one insulated first wire (22a) with two ends and comprising a first electrically conductive metal (24a); and one insulated second wire (22b) with two ends and comprising a second electrically conductive metal (24b), wherein the cable (Fig. 1B) is devoid of any ferromagnetic foil surrounding the first and second wires. Telley et al. does not disclose the first metal and the second metal having a conductivity value of less than 5.5% IACS and a relative magnetic permeability value between 0 and 2. Izumida et al. discloses an electrically conductive cable comprises wires. Izumida et al. discloses that when a wire is used as a signal wire, the conductivity value in the range of 2 to 60% IACS ([0031], last 10 lines) and the relative permeability of 1.1 or less ([0026], last 5 lines) are preferable. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the first and second metals of Telley et al. with a conductivity value less than 5.5% IACS and a permeability value between 0 and 2, as taught by Izumida et al., to improve electrical performance of the cable, improved electromagnetic noise reduction. It is noted that since the modified cable of Telley et al. comprises structure and material as claimed; it is an improved, signal carrying, electrically conductive cable having reduced frequency dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein; the predetermined relative permeability value of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a secondary electromagnetic wave that penetrates the first conductive metal nearly radially and travels at significantly lower speeds than a speed of a primary electromagnetic wave along the first metal; the predetermined conductivity of the first metal can reduce a distortion due to a skin effect over a human audio frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz; the combined permeability value and conductivity value can reduce dependent energy loss and phase errors from end to end as a function of the frequencies of audio-range signals conducted therein; the first and second insulated wires can be respectively configured to be positive and and negative signal lines in an audio cable; the skin depth and the radial velocity will have the values as claimed in the indicated reference frequencies.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Re-claims 13 and 15-17, claim 13 is method counterparts of claim 1. Re-claim 15, the modified second wire of Telley et al. can be a neutral or ground wire since it comprises structure and material as claimed. Re-claims 16-17, the magnetic permeability of the first and second metals is about 1 (see Izumida, [0026], last 5 lines).
Re-claim 19, Telley et al. discloses the first and second metals having a round shape.
Re-claims 20-21, Telley et al., as modified, discloses a method as claimed in claims 20-21 (see Izumida for the permeability and conductivity values).
Re-claims 23 and 24, Telley et al. discloses that the first and second metals (24a, 24b) consist of a metal selected from titanium, nickel, zirconium, and cobalt (col. 6, lines 1-5); and the material comprises no copper or copper alloy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the Nguyen and Grensing combination, applicant argues that there is no information within Nguyen or Grensing that can be construed as teaching or disclosing an electrical cable that is devoid of any ferromagnetic foil surrounding the electrical wires. Examiner would disagree because Figure 1 of Nguyen does not have any foil surrounding the electrical wires.
Regarding the Devine and Grensing combination, applicant's arguments against the references individually, and it has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the Telley and Izumida combination, applicant argues that the examiner has not articulated a rational underpinning for combining Telley with Izumida. Examiner would disagree. As stated in the Office Action, Izumida ([0031], last 10 lines and [0026], last 5 lines) teaches that when a wire is used as a signal wire, the conductivity value in the range of 2 to 60% IACS and the relative permeability of 1.1 or less are preferable. First and second wires of Telley are signal wires. Accordingly, applying the teaching of Izumida for the signal wires of Telley is appropriate.
It is noted that claim 20 does not call for the conductivity of less than 5.5% IACS and relative magnetic permeability between 0 and 2. Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to these features in claim 20 are invalid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841