DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL Office action (“Action”) based on the Response with claim amendments filed Oct. 24, 2025 (“Oct. Resp.”), which was filed in reply to the non-final Office action mailed June 24, 2025 based on this reissue application filed October 23, 2023 from U.S. Patent No. 11,158,440 (U.S. patent application no. 16/972,664) (hereinafter “the ’440 patent”).
The following is a summary of the prior art applied in this Action:
U.S. Patent No. 3,164,669, to L. Meyerhoff (“Meyerhoff”).
World Intellectual Property Organization Published Patent Application No. WO 03/079377 A1, to Federighi et al. (“Federighi”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0102474 A1, to Mukoyama et al. (“Mukoyama”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0151272 A1, to Watanabe et al. (“Watanabe”).
U.S. Patent No. 3,717,716, to M.C. Biskeborn et al. (“Biskeborn”).
U.S. Patent No. 11,159,015 B2, to Valkov.
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 .
This reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, therefore, all reference to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.75, and 3.73 are to the current provisions enacted under the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (“AIA ”). See Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 157, pg. 48820, August 16, 2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on Oct. 24, 2025 is has been considered.
Response to Amendments
The previously presented objections to the drawings and claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments submitted in the Oct. Resp. The 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112(b), 112(d), and 251 claim rejections are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments submitted in the Oct. Resp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant makes two main arguments:
First, the claim term “capacitive power transmission cable” means that “electricity is conducted along the set of strands [in the cable] connected to the power source and used to charge insulation positioned between the two sets of strands … [w]hen that insulation discharges, electricity is then conducted through capacitive transmission along the set of strands connected to the load, thereby supplying power to the load,” which is not the same type of power transmission as a conventional cable, such as is shown and described in Meyerhoff. Oct. Resp., section titled “Rejection under 35 USC § 102”. Thus, Meyerhoff does not teach or suggest the claimed invention. See id.
Second, none of the prior art used in the rejections teaches “insulation between the layers of different sets” of strands in the cable. See id. Instead, Meyerhoff teaches that each strand is surrounded by and coated in an enamel insulation, whereas the claimed invention does not require insulation between strands in the same layer, only between layers of strands extending radially outward from the center of the cable. See id. Thus, Meyerhoff does not meet the claim language and would not teach the capacitive relationship between the strands and allow for capacitive power transmission. See id.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding Applicant’s first and second arguments, there is no language in at least the independent claims that would require the claims to be limited to the type of capacitive power transmission, as argued by Applicant, or that insulation can only be between layers of strands. Independent claim 1 requires that “the sets of strands [are] insulated from each other and in a capacitive relationship with one another,” and independent claim 38 requires that there is “insulation between the layers of different sets [of conductive strands], where the at least two sets [of conductive strands] are in capacitive relation with one another.” Neither these limitations nor any other in claims 1 and 38 require the type of capacitive power transmission argued by Applicant or that the insulation must only be between strands in different layers and cannot surround each strand. Therefore, since limitations are not read from the specification into the claims (see MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II), and for at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Objections – Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed Oct. 24, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.175 (see also MPEP § 1414) for the following reasons.
First, none of the reissue oath/declaration pages submitted on Oct. 24, 2025 are signed.
Second, section 1414, subsection II, of the MPEP requires for a broadening reissue to “identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” While the error statement in the Oct. 24 reissue declaration identifies claim 38, this is a newly presented claim and is not an original claim being broadened. Additionally, there is no identification of a “word, phrase, or expression … in an original claim … [that] renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.”
A newly executed reissue oath/declaration remedying the issues above is required.
Objections – Specification
The specification is objected to because the original specification does not describe “insulation which is at least 10μm thick” in that the lower bound (i.e., “10μm”) is not described in the specification. In other words, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). While the originally filed claims support the “10μm” language, the description does not. To remedy this, the specification should be amended to include the “10μm” language.
Objections – Claims
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of the claim “with one other” should be changed to “with one another.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claims 1-22, 26-32, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon defective reissue declarations. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defects in the declarations is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyerhoff.
Claim 38
Claim 38 recites and Meyerhoff teaches:
A capacitive power transmission cable (Meyerhoff 1:10-12, 2:24-27, Fig. 1, cable conductor 10) comprising:
at least two sets of conductive strands (Meyerhoff 2:24-27, 3:7-25, Fig. 1, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are sets of conductive strands), the sets of strands being
laid in layers of opposite twist (Meyerhoff Fig. 1, the layers 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are shown in opposite twisted layers), with
the strands of one or more adjacent layers being of all one set and then radially outwards the strands of one or more adjacent layers being of all another set and
insulation between the layers of different sets (Meyerhoff 3:7-25, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 is composed of some of the strands, with each layer formed then the next formed radially outward, Fig. 1), where the at least two sets are in capacitive relation with one [another] (Meyerhoff, 3:7-25, since there is an insulating layer (i.e., a dielectric) between conductors of different layers, there is an inherent capacitive relation between them).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 16, 18-21, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, both of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Meyerhoff teaches:
A capacitive power transmission cable (Meyerhoff 1:10-12, 2:24-27, Fig. 1, cable conductor 10) comprising:
at least two sets (21,121; 22,122) of conductive strands (23,123; 24,124) (Meyerhoff 2:24-27, 3:7-25, Fig. 1, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are sets of conductive strands),
the sets of strands being insulated from each other and in capacitive relationship with another (Meyerhoff 3:7-25, the strands and/or layers are insulated from other layers, and since there is an insulating layer (i.e., a dielectric) between conductors of different layers, there is an inherent capacitive relation between them) and
the strands of the sets being distributed in a transverse cross-section of the cable (Meyerhoff 3:7-25, the strands are distributed in layers across the length of the cable, Fig. 1),
characterised in that:
…
the strands are laid in layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7) of opposite twist (Meyerhoff Fig. 1, the layers 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are shown in opposite twisted layers).
Meyerhoff does not necessarily teach that the “capacitance between the two or more sets of strands, when all strands of respective sets are electrically connected together, is at least 10 nF/m,” as further recited in claim 1. Additionally, while Meyerhoff is considered to inherently teach a capacitive relationship between the strands based on their configuration, Meyerhoff does not explicitly teach such a capacitive relationship. Even so, Federighi teaches that insulated conductors of a cable can have a capacitance of 40 nF/km, which is “at least 10 nF/m.” See Federighi 5:28-6:10; see also Federighi 7:3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the loss of power and attenuation when transmitting the “power” and increase the distance of transmission. See Federighi 2:7-14.
Independent Claim 38
Claim 38 recites and Meyerhoff teaches:
A capacitive power transmission cable (Meyerhoff 1:10-12, 2:24-27, Fig. 1, cable conductor 10) comprising:
at least two sets of conductive strands (Meyerhoff 2:24-27, 3:7-25, Fig. 1, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are sets of conductive strands), the sets of strands being
laid in layers of opposite twist (Meyerhoff Fig. 1, the layers 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 are shown in opposite twisted layers), with
the strands of one or more adjacent layers being of all one set and then radially outwards the strands of one or more adjacent layers being of all another set and
insulation between the layers of different sets (Meyerhoff 3:7-25, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 is composed of some of the strands, with each layer formed then the next formed radially outward, Fig. 1), where the at least two sets are in capacitive relation with one [another] (Meyerhoff, 3:7-25, since there is an insulating layer (i.e., a dielectric) between conductors of different layers, there is an inherent capacitive relation between them).
While Meyerhoff is considered to inherently teach a capacitive relationship between the strands based on their configuration, Meyerhoff does not explicitly teach such a capacitive relationship. Even so, Federighi teaches that insulated conductors of a cable can have a capacitance relationship, such as of 40 nF/km. See Federighi 5:28-6:10; see also Federighi 7:3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the loss of power and attenuation when transmitting the “power” and increase the distance of transmission. See Federighi 2:7-14.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches, “all of the strands of at least one of the sets having a respective insulation (25,125; 26,126) of dielectric strength to enable the sets of conductive strands to remain isolated.” Meyerhoff 3:7-9, insulating the wires is isolating them.
Dependent Claims 4-6
Claim 4 additionally recites, “the sets are insulated from each other by insulation which is at least 10 μm thick,” claim 5 additionally recites, “the sets are insulated from each other by insulation which is between 20 μm and 540 μm thick,” and claim 6 additionally recites, “the sets are insulated from each other by insulation which is between 17 μm and 1079 μm thick.” Meyerhoff does not explicitly teach the thickness of the insulation. Federighi, however, remedies this and teaches that the thickness of the insulation is between 0.03 mm (30 μm) and 0.164 mm (164 μm), the entirety of which falls within the ranges recited in claims 4-6. See Federighi 6:28-7:4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insulation of a certain thickness, as in Federighi, to achieve a desirable capacitance, which reduces the loss of power and attenuation when transmitting the “power” and increases the distance of transmission. See Federighi 2:7-14; 7:3-4.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches “the strands (23,123; 24,124) of the two or more sets (21,121; 22,122) are alternated in their layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7).” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, Fig. 1, the sets of strands making up the respective layers can be laid in a variety of configurations, including in alternating layers.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches “the strands (23,123; 24,124) are laid in alternating layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7) of all one set (21; 121) and then all another set (22; 122).” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, Fig. 1, the sets of strands making up the respective layers can be laid in a variety of configurations, including in alternating layers.
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches “at least one of the sets (21,121; 22,122) of conductive strands (23,123; 24,124) is uninsulated, with the insulation of the strands (25,125; 26,126) of another set (21,121; 22,122) providing the insulation.” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, Fig. 1, the sets of strands making up the respective layers can be laid in a variety of configurations, including sets of layers being uninsulated and another set being insulated.
Dependent Claim 16
Claim 16 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches “the insulation is by means of insulating coatings (25,125; 26,126) of enamel which is extruded, wound or woven.” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, 34-37.
Dependent Claims 18-20
Claim 18 additionally recites, “there are between 37 and 397 strands per set,” and both claims 19 and 20 recite, “there are between 19 and 547 strands per set.” Meyerhoff shows in Fig. 1 that at least the outermost layer and the immediately adjacent layer (i.e., the “two sets”) radially inward each have at least 37 strands, which satisfies all of claims 18-20. While the other half of the strands are not shown in Fig. 1, it is clear that they continue around the other side, and counting the strands on the half shown in Fig. 1, then doubling that amount, results in at least 37 strands.
Dependent Claim 21
Claim 21 additionally recites and Meyerhoff further teaches “the strands are of copper or aluminium wire.” Meyerhoff 4:14-17.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, and in further view of Mukoyama, all of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 recites “the insulation is of tape between 30 μm and 1.35 mm thick.” Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach this limitation, but Mukoyama remedies this and teaches insulation in a conductive cable can be a tape insulation and have a thickness of 0.1 mm. See Mukoyama ¶47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tape insulation of a particular thickness, such as in Mukoyama, in the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi to maintain proper insulation at respective voltages, and thus, avoid insulation breakdown. See Mukoyama ¶3.
Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, and in further view of Watanabe, all of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 17
Claim 17, which depends from claim 1, recites and Meyerhoff further teaches, “all sets of strands have their own insulation.” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, Fig. 1, each set of strands may have their own insulation in one of the many configurations of insulated and uninsulated strands. Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach the additionally recited limitation of claim 17. Even so, Watanabe remedies this and teaches that “the respective insulations of the sets are differently coloured to allow their separation for connection at opposite ends of the cable.” Watanabe ¶30, each group of group of wires has a different colored insulation for identification, which is useful when connecting the wires one either end of the cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use differently colored insulation around wires, as in Watanabe, in a cable, such as in the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi, to identify wires in the same cable. See Watanabe ¶30.
Dependent Claim 34
Claim 34, which depends from claim 1, recites and Meyerhoff teaches:
the strands of one or more layers being of all one set, are positioned adjacent and radially outwards from the strands of one or more layers being of all another set, insulation is provided between the layers of different sets (Meyerhoff 3:7-25, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 is composed of some of the strands, with each layer formed then the next formed radially outward, Fig. 1), whereby the at least two sets are in capacitive relation to each other (Meyerhoff, 3:7-25, since there is an insulating layer (i.e., a dielectric) between conductors of different layers, there is an inherent capacitive relation between them) and …
one set of strands being of tinned strands and the other being of plain strands (Meyerhoff 2:10-13, the bare wires (i.e., “one set”) may be tinned and the others are “plain”).
While Meyerhoff is considered to inherently teach a capacitive relationship between the strands based on their configuration, Meyerhoff does not explicitly teach such a capacitive relationship. Even so, Federighi teaches that insulated conductors of a cable can have a capacitance relationship, such as of 40 nF/km. See Federighi 5:28-6:10; see also Federighi 7:3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the loss of power and attenuation when transmitting the “power” and increase the distance of transmission. See Federighi 2:7-14.
Lastly, neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach the remaining recited limitations. Watanabe remedies this and teaches, “the conductive strands are not insulated and are differently coloured between their sets.” Watanabe ¶30, each group of group of wires has a different colored insulation for identification, which is useful when connecting the wires one either end of the cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use differently colored insulation around wires, as in Watanabe, in a cable, such as in the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi, to identify wires in the same cable. See Watanabe ¶30.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10, which depends from claim 34, recites and Meyerhoff teaches the cable includes “insulation (27; 127) between layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7) of different sets (21,121; 22,122), whereby the at least two sets are in capacitive relation to each other.” Meyerhoff 3:7-25, each layer 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 is composed of some of the strands, with each layer formed then the next formed radially outward, Fig. 1; id. 3:7-25, since there is an insulating layer (i.e., a dielectric) between conductors of different layers, there is an inherent capacitive relation between them.
While Meyerhoff is considered to inherently teach a capacitive relationship between the strands based on their configuration, Meyerhoff does not explicitly teach such a capacitive relationship. Even so, Federighi teaches that insulated conductors of a cable can have a capacitance relationship, such as of 40 nF/km. See Federighi 5:28-6:10; see also Federighi 7:3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the loss of power and attenuation when transmitting the “power” and increase the distance of transmission. See Federighi 2:7-14.
Dependent Claim 11
Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites and Meyerhoff teaches “the insulation is polymer insulation between each layer to fill interstices between individual strands.” Meyerhoff 3:52-57, the insulating enamel is a polymer, and since it can be coiled and is flexible, the enamel is considered “soft.”
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14, which depends from claim 10, Meyerhoff further teaches that “one set of strands are a first colour and the other are a second colour, different from the first colour” in the sense that the enamel inherently has some kind of color based on its physical properties (e.g., it is not invisible), so the enamel coated strands are colored and the uncoated strands are uncolored. See Meyerhoff 3:7-25, 52-57.
However, while the enamel in Meyerhoff is considered to inherently have a color, Watanabe teaches that different sets of wires in a cable may be covered in colored insulation. Watanabe ¶30, each group of group of wires has a different colored insulation for identification, which is useful when connecting the wires one either end of the cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use differently colored insulation around wires, as in Watanabe, in a cable, such as in the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi, to identify wires in the same cable. See Watanabe ¶30.
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15, which depends from claim 10, Meyerhoff further teaches that “one set of strands is tinned and the other is untinned.” See Meyerhoff 2:10-13, since some wires can be tinned, they are colored, and the other “untinned” wires, are considered plain, or uncolored.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, and in further view of Biskeborn, all of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 22
Claim 22, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the strands are die compressed in their layers.” Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach this particular limitation. However, Biskeborn remedies this and teaches wires in a cable may be “die compressed.” Biskeborn 3:45-51. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compress, such as in Biskeborn, the strands of a cable, such as in the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi, to reduce the size of the cable and fill in any spaces created by the wires and insulation, thus, protecting entry of outside substances, such as water. See Biskeborn 3:1-4.
Claims 28, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, and in further view of Valkov, all of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 28
Claim 28, which depends from claim 1, recites that “for connection to a supply conductor or a load conductor, a first and a second connector block (1007,1008) is provided with terminals (1009) for a first and second set of conductors (1003,1004) at respective ends (1005,1006) of the cable.” Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach these additionally recited limitations. Valkov remedies this and teaches in at least Figs. 1 and 5, cables with connectors 103 having terminals (e.g., connectable ends) for the wires (i.e., “conductors”) of the cable for supplying power to a load. See Valkov 4:37-46, 10:1-20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a connector with terminals for connecting the conductors of the cable to both a load and power supply, as in Valkov, with the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi to distribute and deliver adequate power to a load, which can result in various advantages, including reliable delivery of electrical currents, electrically insulate “hot points” of the power supply, and ease of connection, among others. See Valkov 12:17-51.
Dependent Claim 36
Claim 36, which depends from claim 1, recites that “having all the strands of respective sets connected together, a first set at a first end and a second set at a second end.” Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi teach the additionally recited limitations. Even so, Valkov remedies this and teaches that the strands are connected together one either end. Valkov, 9:31-35, Fig. 5, as shown, each end of the cables are connected to the power supply 116 and loads 117. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a connector with terminals for connecting the conductors of the cable to both a load and power supply, as in Valkov, with the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi to distribute and deliver adequate power to a load, which can result in various advantages, including reliable delivery of electrical currents, electrically insulate “hot points” of the power supply, and ease of connection, among others. See Valkov 12:17-51.
Dependent Claim 37
Claim 37 recites “[a] method of transmitting power, comprising using a capacitive power transmission cable according to claim 1, for transmitting power with one of the at least two sets of conductive strands connected to an electrical power source at a first end and with another of the at least two sets of conductive strands connected to a load at a second end.” Meyerhoff and Federighi teach the “capacitive power transmission cable according to claim 1,” as noted above. Neither Meyerhoff nor Federighi, however, teach the additionally recited limitations. Even so, Valkov remedies this and teaches at opposite ends of the cable are connected a respective supply and load. Valkov, 9:31-35, Fig. 5, as shown, each end of the cables are connected to the power supply 116 and loads 117. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a connector with terminals for connecting the conductors of the cable to both a load and power supply, as in Valkov, with the combination of Meyerhoff and Federighi to distribute and deliver adequate power to a load, which can result in various advantages, including reliable delivery of electrical currents, electrically insulate “hot points” of the power supply, and ease of connection, among others. See Valkov 12:17-51.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerhoff in view of Federighi, in view of Watanabe, and in further view of Mukoyama, all of which are in the same field of conductive cables as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13, which depends from claim 10, recites “the insulation is of tape between 25 μm and 2.7 mm thick.” None of Meyerhoff, Federighi, nor Watanabe teach the additionally recited limitation. However, Mukoyama remedies this and teaches insulation in a conductive cable can be a tape insulation and have a thickness of 0.1 mm. See Mukoyama ¶47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tape insulation of a particular thickness, such as in Mukoyama, in the combination of Meyerhoff, Federighi, and Watanabe to maintain proper insulation at respective voltages, and thus, avoid insulation breakdown. See Mukoyama ¶3.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Amendments made during examination of a reissue application are different than amendments made during examination of a standard utility application. See 37 CFR § 1.173; see also MPEP § 1453.
A few notable, but by no means the only, differences are:
Throughout examination of a reissue application, amendments are always with respect to the original patent regardless of any amendments that have already been filed. See 37 CFR § 1.173(g).
Deleted limitations must be shown in single brackets while newly added limitations and the entirety of newly added claims are underlined, including number and status identifier. See 37 CFR § 1.173(d).
Changes to the specification must mention where in the issued patent (i.e., column and lines numbers) the changes are to be made and the entirety of an amended paragraph must be presented, unless canceling the paragraph. See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(1)(i); see also MPEP § 1453, subsection V.A., Example (1).
Status identifiers, after the first amendment, must indicate how many times an original patent claim has been amended during examination of the reissue application (e.g., “Twice Amended”, etc.). See 37 CFR § 1.173(b)(2).
When claims are amended, “there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” 37 CFR § 1.173(c).
Applicant Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,158,440 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/ SPRS, Art Unit 3991