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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed September 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17 and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been fully considered.
Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Lancaster (US 2014/0251653). The applicant briefly contacted the examiner (no interview was scheduled) to discuss the suggestion in the Office Action mailed in June 18, 2025 that amending the independent claims to incorporate the limitation of dependent claims 7 and 8 could potentially overcome the rejection. Based on the record at the time of the Office Action, the examiner indicated that such an amendment appeared likely to place the independent claims in condition for allowance. However, upon further review, Lancaster in view of Siripurpu et al. (US 2017/0110704) is found to teach the additional limitation from claim 7, namely that “a second material (e.g., an aluminum–zirconium alloy) anneals at a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor, wherein the temperature above the operating temperature range is greater than or equal to 210°C.” Also, the limitation of claim 8, which reads “an upper end of the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is 90 degrees Celsius “ is considered to be an inherent characteristic of the Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) insulation material taught in the cable of Lancaster. Accordingly, although claims 1, 17 and 20 were amended to include the limitation of claims 7 and 8, they remain unpatentable over Lancaster in view of Siripurpu et al.
This action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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. Dependent claim 14 should depend from dependent claim 2. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “second material” in line 4 should read “the second material” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “second material” in line 4 should read “the second material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “second material” in line 5 should read “the second material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “helical wrapped” should read “helically wrapped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 13-16. 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 2014/0251653) in view of Siripurapu et al. (US 2017/0110704).
In regards to claim 1, Lancaster teaches an electrical conductor comprising: a conductor core (120) comprising a first material (High Strength steel) paragraph [0118]); a plurality of conductor strands (125) wrapped around the conductor core (120), the plurality of conductor strands (125) comprising a second material (aluminum zirconium or 1350-O temper aluminum, paragraph [0018]), wherein second material is capable of annealing at a temperature above an operating temperature range (While the maximum operating temperature for 1350-O aluminum electrical conductors can vary based on insulation type and other factors, it is generally much lower than the annealing temperature. For example, 1350-O has a melting point of 646.1 - 657.2 °C (1195 - 1215 °F); the operating temperature will be significantly below this to ensure safe and efficient operation) of the electrical conductor (100) and at least one covering layer disposed around the plurality of conductor strands (disposed in a thermoplastic matrix, paragraph [0018]).
Lancaster does not explicitly teach the temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius.
Siripurapu et al. teaches a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius (Siripurapu et al. teaches conductive elements (made of aluminum zirconium) that undergo heat aging at 280°C to ensure they maintain 90% of their strength (paragraph [00040]) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius; although aluminum zirconium can handle higher heat, the Siripurapu et al. covers "cables and wires" generally, which includes those rated for standard 90°C operation in power distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 2, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1.
Lancaster does not explicitly teach wherein the conductor core comprises a plurality of core strands, each of the plurality of core strands comprising the first material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the conductor core comprises a plurality of core strands, 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.
In regards to claim 3, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the conductor core comprises one core strand (see figure 1) comprising the first material (steel, paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 4, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises High Strength ((HS) steel , paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 5, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises Ultra-High Strength Steel (UHS/HS285) ((UHS) steel , paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 6, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises Standard Strength Steel (standard steel , paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 8, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1.
Lancaster does not explicitly teach an upper end of the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is 90 degrees Celsius.
Lancaster does teach the insulation material is of a Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) insulation in (paragraph 0018]). An upper operating temperature of 90°C for an electrical conductor is considered by the examiner to mean its insulation is designed to safely handle temperatures up to 90 degrees Celsius (194°F) without breaking down, melting, or losing conductivity; the Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) insulation in Lancaster is fit for an application requiring a 90°C rating since PPS is rated for continuous use at temperatures between 200°C and 240°C (392°F to 464°F), far above the 90°C limit; it is a high-performance material that significantly exceeds this requirement. PPS is an "ultra-high-performance" thermoplastic typically reserved for much more demanding environments and thus fore, this limitation is considered to be an inherent characteristic of the Lancaster cable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included the teachings of the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is 90 degrees Celsius, 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.
In regards to claim 9, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy (paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 13, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality conductor strands are compacted (packed together, figure 1).
In regards to claim 14, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of core strands (120) comprises a center strand (120) with a plurality of outer core strands (125) helical wrapped around the center strand (120)(figure 2).
In regards to claim 15, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductor strands (125) comprises a second conductor layer helical wrapped around a first conductor layer (120)(figure 1).
In regards to claim 16, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 15, wherein the first conductor layer and second conductor layer (120, 125) are wrapped in respective alternating hand lay (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 20, Lancaster teaches a method for providing an electrical conductor comprising: a conductor core (120) comprising a first material (High Strength steel) paragraph [0118]); a plurality of conductor strands (125) wrapped around the conductor core (120), the plurality of conductor strands (125) comprising a second material (aluminum zirconium or 1350-O temper aluminum, paragraph [0018]), wherein second material is capable of annealing at a temperature above an operating temperature range (While the maximum operating temperature for 1350-O aluminum electrical conductors can vary based on insulation type and other factors, it is generally much lower than the annealing temperature. For example, 1350-O has a melting point of 646.1 - 657.2 °C (1195 - 1215 °F). The operating temperature will be significantly below this to ensure safe and efficient operation) of the electrical conductor (100) and at least one covering layer disposed around the plurality of conductor strands (disposed in a thermoplastic matrix, paragraph [0018]).
Lancaster does not explicitly teach the temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius.
Siripurapu et al. teaches a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius (Siripurapu et al. teaches conductive elements (made of aluminum zirconium) that undergo heat aging at 280°C to ensure they maintain 90% of their strength (paragraph [00040])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius; although aluminum zirconium can handle higher heat, the Siripurapu et al. covers "cables and wires" generally, which includes those rated for standard 90°C operation in power distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 21, Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 20, wherein the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy (paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 10, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 2014/0251653) in view of and Siripurapu et al. (US 2017/0110704)(hereinafter referred to as modified Lancaster) in view of D2 (RU 99650).
In regards to claim 10, modified Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 9.
Modified Lancaster does not teach the aluminum zirconium alloy is between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively.
D2 teaches an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively (.28-.7% of zirconium, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 22, modified Lancaster teaches the electrical conductor of claim 20.
Modified Lancaster does not teach the aluminum zirconium alloy is between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively.
D2 teaches an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively (.28-.7% of zirconium, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 23, modified Lancaster in combination with D2 teaches the electrical conductor of claim 20.
Modified Lancaster does not explicitly teach the temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius.
Siripurapu et al. teaches a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius (Siripurapu et al. teaches conductive elements (made of aluminum zirconium) that undergo heat aging at 280°C to ensure they maintain 90% of their strength (paragraph [00040]) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius; although aluminum zirconium can handle higher heat, the Siripurapu et al. covers "cables and wires" generally, which includes those rated for standard 90°C operation in power distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 2014/0251653) in view of and Siripurapu et al. (US 2017/0110704)(hereinafter referred to as modified Lancaster), in further view of Ranganthan et al. (SU 2015/0194240).
In regards to claim 11, modified Lancaster the electrical conductor of claim 1.
Modified Lancaster does not teach the at least one covering layer comprises one of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Cross-Linked Polyethylene (XLPE).
Ranganthan et al. teaches the at least one covering layer comprises one of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Cross-Linked Polyethylene (XLPE) (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the covering layer of a of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), 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.
In regards to claim 12, modified Lancaster the electrical conductor of claim 1.
Modified Lancaster does not teach the plurality of conductor strands has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape.
Ranganthan et al. teaches the plurality of conductor strands has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (see figure 4).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the plurality of conductor strands has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster (US 2014/0251653) in view of Siripurapu et al. (US 2017/0110704) and D2 (RU 99650).
In regards to claim 17, Lancaster teaches an electrical conductor comprising: a conductor core (120) comprising a first material (High Strength steel) paragraph [0118]); a plurality of conductor strands (125) wrapped around the conductor core (120), the plurality of conductor strands (125) comprising a second material (aluminum zirconium or 1350-O temper aluminum, paragraph [0018]), wherein second material is capable of annealing at a temperature above an operating temperature range (while the maximum operating temperature for 1350-O aluminum electrical conductors can vary based on insulation type and other factors, it is generally much lower than the annealing temperature. For example, 1350-O has a melting point of 646.1 - 657.2 °C (1195 - 1215 °F). The operating temperature will be significantly below this to ensure safe and efficient operation) of the electrical conductor (100) and at least one covering layer disposed around the plurality of conductor strands (disposed in a thermoplastic matrix, paragraph [0018]).
Lancaster does not explicitly teach an upper end of the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is 90 degrees Celsius.
Lancaster does teach the insulation material is of a Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) in (paragraph 0018]). An upper operating temperature of 90°C for an electrical conductor is considered by the examiner to mean its insulation is designed to safely handle temperatures up to 90 degrees Celsius (194°F) without breaking down, melting, or losing conductivity; the Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) insulation in Lancaster is fit for an application requiring a 90°C rating since PPS is rated for continuous use at temperatures between 200°C and 240°C (392°F to 464°F), far above the 90°C limit; it is a high-performance material that significantly exceeds this requirement. PPS is an "ultra-high-performance" thermoplastic typically reserved for much more demanding environments and thus fore, this limitation is considered to be an inherent characteristic of the Lancaster cable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included the teachings of the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is 90 degrees Celsius, 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.
Lancaster does not explicitly teach the temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius.
Siripurapu et al. teaches a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius (Siripurapu et al. teaches conductive elements (made of aluminum zirconium) that undergo heat aging at 280°C to ensure they maintain 90% of their strength (paragraph [00040]) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius; although aluminum zirconium can handle higher heat, the Siripurapu et al. covers "cables and wires" generally, which includes those rated for standard 90°C operation in power distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Lancaster does not teach the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively.
D2 teaches an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively (.28-.7% of zirconium, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the second material comprises an aluminum zirconium alloy between 0.20% and 0.33% zirconium inclusively, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 18, Lancaster in combination with Siripurapu et al. and D2 teaches the electrical conductor of claim 17, further comprising at least one covering layer (disposed in a thermoplastic matrix, paragraph [0018]). disposed around the plurality of conductor strands.
In regards to claim 19, Lancaster in combination with Siripurapu et al. and D2 teaches the electrical conductor of claim 17.
Lancaster does not explicitly teach the temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius.
Siripurapu et al. teaches a temperature above the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor is greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius (Siripurapu et al. teaches conductive elements (made of aluminum zirconium) that undergo heat aging at 280°C to ensure they maintain 90% of their strength (paragraph [00040]) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the operating temperature range of the electrical conductor greater than or equal to 210 degrees Celsius; although aluminum zirconium can handle higher heat, the Siripurapu et al. covers "cables and wires" generally, which includes those rated for standard 90°C operation in power distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gladenbeck (US 4,097,686) teaches a multilayered stranded conductor; Smith (US 2004/0182597) teaches a high voltage transmission cable.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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 Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848