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.
Claim 16 is 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. Specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of “interlayer gaps being formed between adjacent aluminum foil layers” as now cited in claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, lines 2-3, “the aluminum wire composite structural member” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, lines 3-4, “a flat shape” is unclear to how this relates to “a flat shape” cited in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “the aluminum conductive core comprises the aluminum wire composite structural member,” while claim 1 earlier recites “the aluminum conductive core comprises an aluminum foil composite structural member.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 3, 4, and 17 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sexton et al. (8481853).
Sexton et al. discloses a flexible aluminum conductive wire body (left side of Fig. 4B), comprising an aluminum (col. 14, lines 56-58) conductive core and an insulating layer (not shown in Fig. 4B) wrapped outside the aluminum conductive core; and the aluminum conductive core comprises an aluminum foil composite structural member, wherein the aluminum foil composite structural member is disposed as a flat shape, wherein the aluminum foil composite structural member comprises a plurality of aluminum foil layers (210, 221, 222), at least part of which are stacked in a same direction, and an area of an overlapping portion between adjacent two of the aluminum foil layers accounts for 9.8% to 80% of a single surface area of the aluminum foil layer. Shown on the left side of Fig. 4B, a layer 210 overlaps between 40-50% of the surface area of adjacent layer 221 (re-claim 1). Sexton et al. also discloses that each aluminum foil layer has the same specifications, and the foil layers are stacked in the same direction to form a flat shape (re-claim 6); and a connecting member (615/625) is connected to an end of the conductive core in the conductive wire body (re-claim 9).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (10232809).
Kato discloses a flexible aluminum (col. 6, lines 22-26 and col. 9, lines 55- 59) conductive wire body, comprising an aluminum conductive core (Figs 1 & 4) and an insulating layer wrapped outside the conductive core, wherein the conductive core comprises an aluminum wire composite structural member (re- claim 1) which is a braided tape (re-claim 2).
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 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi (2023/0155305) in view of Chan (5414211).
Kawaguchi discloses a flexible conductive wire body (11, Fig. 1), comprising a conductive core (12) and an insulating layer (13) wrapped outside the conductive core, wherein the conductive core comprises a wire composite structural member (re-claim 1) which comprises a braided tape (re-claim 2), wherein the braided tape comprises multiple strands (15) of wire bundles (16), each of which comprises a plurality of wires (15) and the multiple strands of wire bundles are interwoven with each other to form a flat braided tape (re-claim 3).
Kawaguchi does not disclose the conductive wire body/the wires being aluminum body/wires (re-claim 1). Chan discloses a conductive body comprising a braided tape. Chan discloses that in many applications, such as automobiles, the weight of the tape must be considered, and aluminum is a lighter wire as compared to copper wire (col. 2, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use aluminum for the conductive body/wires of Kawaguchi to provide a lighter conductive body as taught by Chan.
Re-claim 4, Kawaguchi discloses an overlapping zone being formed between two of the wires interwoven with each other, but does not disclose the area of the overlapping zone accounting for at least 2.5% of a cross-sectional area of the wire. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to choose suitable area of the overlapping zone in the conductive wire body of Kawaguchi to meet the specific use of the resulting body since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re-claim 17, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the braided tape of Kawaguchi to comprise longitudinal aluminum wires and transverse aluminum wires to meet the specific use of the resulting conductive core since a braid comprising longitudinal and transverse wires is known in the art.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al. in view of Inoue et al. (JP 2010-167427).
Sexton et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for an end of the conductive core being connected to an aluminum terminal and a sealing member disposed at a joint between the connecting member and the conductive core. Inoue et al. discloses a conductive member comprising a connecting member (11/12) being connected to an end of a conductive core, wherein the connecting member is an aluminum terminal, and wherein a sealing member (31-34) is disposed at a joint between the connecting member and the conductive core or at a position where a conductor of the conductive member is exposed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect an end of the conductive core of Sexton et al. to an aluminum terminal and to dispose a sealing member at a joint between the connecting member and the conductive core as taught by Inoue et al. to provide a sealed connection therefrom.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al. in view of Kato.
Sexton et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the conductive member being disposed on/in a shell of an automobile. Kato discloses an automobile (Fig. 1) comprising a shell and a conductive member (20, 53/59), wherein the conductive member is disposed on/in the shell. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the conductive member of Sexton et al. in an automobile, where the conductive member is disposed on/in a shell of the automobile as taught by Kato since the conductive member, to provide electrical interconnections therein.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al. in view of Harwath et al. (2015/0034381).
Sexton et al. (left side of Fig. 4B) discloses the invention substantially as claimed including first aluminum foil layer (221); second aluminum foil layer (210); and third aluminum foil layer (210), wherein the second and third aluminum layers (210) are stacked above or below the first aluminum layer (221), and wherein the third aluminum foil layer (210) is arranged side by side with the second aluminum foil layer (210). Sexton et al. does not disclose the first, second, and third aluminum foil layers, each composed of aluminum foil layers. Harwath et al. discloses an aluminum foil layer composed of a plurality of aluminum foil layers (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify each of the first, second, and third aluminum foil layers of Sexton et al. to compose a plurality of aluminum foil layers as taught by Harwath et al. to improve the flexibility of the wire body.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwath (10002688).
Harwath discloses a flexible aluminum conductive wire body comprising an aluminum conductive core (10) and an insulating layer (15) wrapped outside the conductive core, wherein the conductive core comprises an aluminum foil composite structural member which is disposed as a flat shape, wherein the structural member comprises a plurality of aluminum foil layers, at least part of which are stacked in the same direction, wherein an area of an overlapping portion between adjacent two foil layers accounts for less than 100% of a surface area of the aluminum foil layer (Fig. 7, layer 30 has smaller width compared to the adjacent layer) (re-claim 1). Harwath does not disclose the overlapping portion accounting for 80% of the surface area of the foil layer. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art modify the conductive core of Harwath such that the overlapping portion accounts for 80% of the surface area of the foil layer to meet the specific use of the resulting wire body since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwath in view of Boll et al. (6229327).
Harwath, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed including interlayer gaps being formed between adjacent foil layers. Harwath does not disclose the foil layers, outside the insulating layer, having a stacking thickness that gradually increases along a length (longitudinal) direction perpendicular to the stacking direction toward the insulating layer. Boll et al. (Fig. 1a) discloses a conductive core surrounded by an insulating layer (14), wherein outside the insulating layer, the core has a thickness that gradually increase along the longitudinal direction toward the insulating layer. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the conductive core of Harwath such that the stacking thickness of the foil layers, outside the insulating layer, gradually increases along the longitudinal direction toward the insulating layer for matching unequal impedances over a broad frequency range as taught by Boll et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights