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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 17-19, 21, 23-26, 38, and 40-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “the first binder being loosely positioned around the at least two conductors”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “the first binder being loosely positioned around the at least two conductors so as to allow the control subassembly and each of the at least two conductors to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the specification does not provide support for the “….control subassembly and each of the at least two conductors to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable”. Rather, the specification teaches the opposite by “ The binder 16 is loosely wrapped around the conductors 14, 18 so as to allow the conductors 14, 18 to freely move”. Secondly, while the drawings of Figures 8A-8B would suggest the above stated claim language, none of the description of Figures 8A-8B describe “…..the control subassembly and each of the at least two conductors to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable”. Because the applicant has not stated that the drawings are illustrated to scale, “it cannot be stated that the applicant intends for “ the control subassembly and each of the at least two conductors to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable”.
In light of the above, the applicant doesn’t necessarily provide enablement for the claim language of “….control subassembly and each of the at least two conductors to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable” and therefore such claim language should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 23-26, 38, and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straniero et al (Pub Num 2016/0196899, herein referred to as Straniero) in view of Bigbee, Jr. et al (Pat Num 11,538,606, herein referred to as Bigbee). Straniero discloses a metal clad cable (Figs 1-15) that reduces cable installation time and cost, reducing materials, and providing mechanical protection for all conductors within the cable (Paragraph 69). Specifically, with respect to claim 17, Straniero discloses a metal clad cable (100, Fig 4) comprising at least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C), wherein each are disposed within a respective first jacket (14, 14, 14, respectively), a control subassembly (2) comprising at least two control wires (6A, 6B), wherein each of the at least two control wires (6A, 6B) are disposed in within a respective second jacket (14, 14, respectively), a first binder (16, 16, 16) surrounding the at least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C), a second binder (15) outside of the first binder (16, 16, 16, Fig 4) and surrounding all of the at least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C) and the control subassembly (2, Paragraph 37), and a spiral wound metal cladding (10) surrounding the at least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C) and the control subassembly (2, Fig 4), wherein the control subassembly (2) is outside of the first binder (16, 16, 16, Fig 4). With respect to claim 18, Straniero discloses that the first binder (16, 16, 16, respectively) comprises a polymeric material (Paragraph 36). With respect to claim 21, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C) comprises three power conductors (Fig 4). With respect to claim 23, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) may be 10 gauge or 12 gauge conductors (i.e. 6-18 AWG, Paragraph 46) and wherein the control conductors (6A & 6B) may be 16 gauge (Paragraph 33). With respect to claims 24-25, Straniero discloses that the least two power conductors (13A, 13B, 13C) may be solid conductors or stranded conductors (Paragraph 33). With respect to claim 26, Straniero discloses that the metal clad cable (600, as shown in Fig 10) may further include a grounding conductor (20) outside the second binder (15) and surround and in contact with the spiral wrapped metal cladding (10, Fig 10). With respect to claim 38, Straniero discloses that the control subassembly (2) is disposed in a third jacket (11, Fig 4, Paragraph 37). With respect to claim 40, Straniero discloses that the first binder ((16, 16, 16, Fig 4) surrounds the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) but does not surround the control subassembly (2). With respect to claim 41, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) may be solid power conductors (Paragraph 46) that may be 10 gauge or 12 gauge conductors (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) which may be 10 gauge or 12 gauge conductors (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 42, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) may be solid power conductors (Paragraph 46) and may be 10 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) which may be 10 gauge (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 43, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) may be solid power conductors (Paragraph 46) and may comprise at least three solid power conductors (Paragraph 33) may be 10 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 44, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) may be solid power conductors (Paragraph 46) that may be and may comprise at least three solid power conductors (Paragraph 33), which may be 12 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) which may be 10 gauge (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 45, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) which may be solid power conductors (Paragraph 46) and may be 12 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) outside the second binder (15) and surround and in contact with the spiral wrapped metal cladding (10, Fig 10) may be 10 gauge (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48). With respect to claims 46-49, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) which may be stranded power conductors (Paragraph 46) and may be 12 and 10 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) outside the second binder (15) and surround and in contact with the spiral wrapped metal cladding (10, Fig 10) may be 10 gauge (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48).
While Straniero discloses a metal clad cable comprising at least three solid power conductors and a ground conductor, Straniero doesn’t necessarily disclose the first binder surrounding all of the at least two conductors (claim 17), nor the metal clad cable further including an insulated grounding conductor (claim 26), nor the at least two power conductors being four conductors (claim 44), nor the ground conductor being sized at 12 AWG (claims 44-45).
Bigbee teaches a metal clad cable (Figs 1-24) that protects against ground faults, short circuits, and/or other electrical faults (Col 3, lines 18-19), while also being flexible (Col 3, line 15). Specifically, with respect to claim 17, Bigbee teaches a metal clad cable (114, Fig 18) comprising at least two power conductors (110a, 110b, 110c), wherein each are disposed within a respective first jacket (Fig 18), a control subassembly (210) comprising at least two control wires (111a, 111b), wherein each of the at least two control wires (111a, 111b) are disposed in a respective second jacket (Fig 18), a first binder (310) surrounding all of the at least two power conductors (110a, 110b, 110c), and a spiral wound metal cladding (117) surrounding the at least two power conductors (110a, 110b, 110c) and the control subassembly (210), wherein the control subassembly (210) is outside of the first binder (310, Fig 18), wherein the first binder (310) is loosely positioned around the at least two conductors (110a, 110b, 110c, Fig 18) so as to allow the control subassembly (210) and each of at least two conductors (110a, 110b, 110c, Fig 18) to be equidistant from a centerline of the metal clad cable (114, Fig 18). With respect to claim 26, Bigbee teaches that the metal clad cable (114, Fig 18) further comprises an insulated grounded conductor (115, Col 8, lines 29-35). With respect to claims 44-45, Bigbee teaches that the at least two power conductors (110a, 110b, 110c, 110d) may be four conductors (Fig 19) and an insulated ground conductor (115), which may be sized at 12 AWG (Col 5, lines 26-28).
With respect to claims 17, 26, and 44-45, 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 metal clad cable of Straniero to comprise the first binder to be a single binder surrounding the at least two power conductors rather than individual binders surrounding the at least two power conductors configuration as taught by Bigbee because Bigbee teaches that such a configuration provides a metal clad cable (Figs 1-24) that protects against ground faults, short circuits, and/or other electrical faults (Col 3, lines 18-19), while also being flexible (Col 3, line 15).
With respect to claim 44-45, 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 metal clad cable of Straniero to comprise the at least three power conductors to be four power conductors configuration as taught by Bigbee because Bigbee teaches that such a configuration provides a metal clad cable (Figs 1-24) that protects against ground faults, short circuits, and/or other electrical faults (Col 3, lines 18-19), while also being flexible (Col 3, line 15) and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St. Regis Paper Co v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
With respect to claims 44-45, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify to modify the metal clad cable of Straniero to comprise the ground conductor being 12 AWG configuration as taught by Bigbee because Bigbee teaches that such a configuration provides a metal clad cable (Figs 1-24) that protects against ground faults, short circuits, and/or other electrical faults (Col 3, lines 18-19), while also being flexible (Col 3, line 15) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and a change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 19 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straniero (Pub Num 2016/0196899) in view of Campbell (Pub Num 2017/0352451), as applied to claims 17, 18, & 25 above (herein referred to as modified Straniero), further in view of Temblador (Pat Num 6,486,395). Modified Straniero discloses a metal clad cable (Figs 1-15) that reduces cable installation time and cost, reducing materials, and providing mechanical protection for all conductors within the cable (Paragraph 69), as disclosed with respect to claim 17 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 19, modified Straniero discloses that the binder (16, 16, 16, respectively) is a polymeric material (Paragraph 36). With respect to claim 26, modified Straniero discloses that the metal clad cable (600, as shown in Fig 10) may further include a grounding conductor (20) outside the second binder (15) and surround and in contact with the spiral wrapped metal cladding (10, Fig 10). With respect to claims 46-49, Straniero discloses that the at least two power conductors (13A, 13C, 13C) which may be stranded power conductors (Paragraph 46) and may be 12 and 10 gauge (i.e. 18-6 AWG, Paragraph 46) and may further include a grounding conductor (20) outside the second binder (15) and surround and in contact with the spiral wrapped metal cladding (10, Fig 10) may be 10 gauge (i.e. 10 AWG, Paragraph 48).
While modified Straniero discloses a metal clad cable comprising a binder and insulated ground conductor that may be 10 or 12 AWG (see rejection above), modified Straniero doesn’t necessarily disclose the metal clad cable, wherein the binder polymeric material is a polyester tape (claim 19), nor the metal clad cable further including an stranded grounding conductor (claims 26 & 46-49).
Temblador teaches a metal clad cable (Figs 3-5) having low impedance and reliable ground path which functions as an equipment grounding conductor (Col 4, lines 31-35). Specifically, with respect to claim 19, Temblador teaches a metal clad cable (120, Fig 5) comprising at least two power conductors (44, 54, 64) each disposed within a first jacket (42, 52, 62, respectively), a bare grounding/bonding wire (84, Col 9, lines 1-7), a binder (170) surrounding the at least two power conductors (44, 54, 64) and being loosely positioned around the at least two power conductors (40, 50, 60, Col 8, lines 19-25) and a spiral wound metal cladding (82) surrounding the at least two power conductors (40, 50, 60) in the binder (170) and the bare grounding/bonding wire (84), wherein the bare grounding/bonding wire (84) is positioned outside of the binder (170, Fig 5), between the binder (170) and the spiral wound metal cladding (84) and is in continuous contact with the spiral wound metal cladding (84), by a force applied by at least one of the at least two power conductors (40, 50, 60) on the bare grounding conductor (84, Col 8, lines 43-47), wherein the binder (170) may be a polymeric material, such as a polyester tape (Col 9, lines 10-14). With respect to claims 46-49, Temblador teaches that the cable (120, Fig 5) may further comprises an stranded ground conductor (60, Col 2, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cable of modified Straniero to comprise the binder to be a polyester tape and the grounding conductor being an insulated grounding conductor, as taught by Temblador because Temblador teaches that such a configuration provides a metal clad cable having low impedance and reliable ground path which functions as an equipment grounding conductor (Col 4, lines 31-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-19, 21, 23-26, 38, and 40-49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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, all of which disclose various metal cladded cables.
Communication
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-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 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.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
October 20, 2025