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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 25, 2024.
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) 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (Pub Num 2017/0103829) in view of Moon et al (Pub Num 2003/0165309, herein referred to as Moon) and Chen (Pat Num 9,157,588). Yu discloses a reinforced electrical wire (Figs 1-2) for usage in holiday lighting (Paragraph 13), wherein the bending resistant performance of the electrical wire, the fatigue strength, and the tensile strength of the electrical wire is greatly improved (Abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Yu discloses a reinforced electric wire (20, Figs 1-2) for use in holiday lighting (Fig 1), wherein the wire (20) comprising an insulator jacket (24) defining an outer perimeter of the wire (20), wherein a conductor (22) disposed in the insulator jacket (24) proximate a first portion of the outer perimeter (Fig 2) and a reinforcing string (26), disposed proximate a second portion of the outer perimeter opposite the first portion (Fig 2), and partially encircling the conductor (22, Fig 2), wherein the conductor (22) formed from a plurality of conductor strands (Paragraph 14). With respect to claim 4, Yu discloses that the reinforcing string (26) is formed from a plurality of reinforcing threads (26, Paragraph 15). With respect to claim 6, Yu discloses each of the plurality of conductor strands (22) are in electrical communication with all other conductor strands (Fig 4). With respect to claim 11, Yu discloses that the insulator jacket (24) is made from a material comprising a plastic (Paragraph 14).
However, Yu doesn’t necessarily disclose the reinforcing string comprising a convex portion and a concave portion, the concave portion partially encircling at least one of the plurality of conductor strands (claim 1), nor the threads conforming to the conductor and forming the concave portion (claim 4), nor the convex portion of the reinforcing string in contact with the second portion of the outer perimeter such that the second portion forms the convex portion (claim 5).
Moon teaches a reinforced electrical cable (Figs 4-5), which has enhanced mechanical properties (Paragraph 19), ensuring minimization of deterioration of the mechanical properties upon application of a large external stress (Paragraph 10). Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Moon teaches a reinforced electric wire (Figs 4-5) comprising an insulator jacket (230, Fig 4) defining an outer perimeter of the wire (Fig 4), wherein a conductors (210) disposed in the insulator jacket (230) proximate a first portion of the outer perimeter (Fig 4) and a reinforcing ribbon (left and right 240) is disposed proximate a second portion of the outer perimeter opposite the first portion (Fig 4), and partially encircling the conductor (210), wherein the reinforcing ribbon (left and right 240) comprises a convex portion (inside of 240) and a concave portion (outside of 240), wherein the concave portion (outside of 240) partially encircling at least one of the plurality of conductor strands (210, Fig 4). With respect to claim 4, Pan teaches that the ribbon (bottom 3a) conforms to the conductor (1) and forming the concave portion (Fig 4). With respect to claim 5, Moon teaches that the convex portion of the reinforcing string (outside of 240) in contact with the second portion of the outer perimeter such that the second portion forms the convex portion (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the reinforced electrical wire of Yu to comprise the reinforcing string to comprise a concave and convex configuration as taught by Moon because Moon teaches that such a configuration provides a reinforced electrical cable (Figs 4-5), which has enhanced mechanical properties (Paragraph 19), ensuring minimization of deterioration of the mechanical properties upon application of a large external stress (Paragraph 10) and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Modified Yu doesn’t necessarily disclose the reinforcing string being in direct connection with the at least one of the plurality of conductors strands (claim 1), conductor being in contact with the first portion of the outer perimeter (claim 7), nor the reinforcing threads being made of nylon, polyester, polypropylene, rayon, Poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide, or mixtures thereof (claim 8), nor the reinforcing threads comprise a conductive metal having a higher resistivity than the conductor (claim 9), nor the reinforcing threads comprising nylon yarn (claim 10).
Chen teaches a reinforced electrical wire (Figs 1-34) that provides internally reinforced, electrical conducting wires having superior tensile strength and elongation for usage in decorative lighting (Cols 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-4 respectively). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Chen teaches that the reinforced electrical wire (100, Fig 6) comprising an insulating jacket (106) defining an outer perimeter of the wire (100), a conductor (104-104e) formed from a plurality of conductors (104-104e) disposed in the insulator jacket (106) and a reinforcing string (102) in direct connection with at least one of the plurality of conductors (104-104e). With respect to claim 7, Chen discloses that the conductors (104-104e) are in contact with the first portion of the outer perimeter (Fig 6). With respect to claim 8, Chen discloses that the reinforcing threads (102) may be made of polyester (Col 5, lines 25-27). With respect to claim 9, Chen teaches a reinforced electric wire (Figs 3-6) for use in holiday lighting (Fig 7A, Cols 3 & 4, lines 65-69 & 1-4, respectively), wherein the wire comprises an insulator jacket (106) defining an outer perimeter of the wire (Fig 6), wherein a conductor (104a-104e) is disposed in the insulator jacket (106) proximate a first portion of the outer perimeter (Fig 6); and a reinforcing string (102) is disposed proximate a portion of the outer perimeter (Fig 6), and partially encircling the conductor (104a-104e), wherein the reinforcing threads (102) may comprise a conductive metal having a higher resistivity than the conductor (Col 5, lines 35-38). With respect to claim 10, Chen teaches that the plurality of conductor strands (104a-104e) may comprise a portion of a copper stranded AWG #22 wire (Col 4, lines 33-44).
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 reinforced electrical wire of modified Yu to comprise the conductor and reinforced strands configuration as taught by Chen because Chen teaches that such a configuration provides a reinforced electrical wire (Figs 1-34) that provides internally reinforced, electrical conducting wires having superior tensile strength and elongation for usage in decorative lighting (Cols 3-4, lines 65-68 & 1-4 respectively).
With respect to claim 10, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the reinforcing members to be made of a nylon material, since it is well known in the art of cables that nylon material, such as aromatic polyimides and Kelvar, are commonly utilized reinforcing members of cables and are well known in the art for their ability to protecting cables for external forces and elements (Examiner takes Official Notice) and since it has been held to be within 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed March 4, 2026, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-11 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
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.
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
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights