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 § 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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (CN 110690004) in view of Callhoff et al. (2013/0129952).
Ai et al. discloses a power cable (Fig. 1) comprising: at least one insulated conductor (4) extending along a cable longitudinal direction; a bedding layer (1) surrounding the at least one insulated conductor; and a non-metallic armour surrounding the bedding layer, wherein the non-metallic armour is made by at least one meshed tape (braid layer 2) wrapped onto the bedding layer.
Ai et al. does not disclose the meshed tape being helically wound onto the bedding; and having an openness factor of at least 30% (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Ai et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to helically wrap the meshed tape (2) onto the bedding layer (1) of Ai et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable, such as flexibility, since a layer helically wound onto a cable core is well-known in the art.
Callhoff et al. discloses a meshed tape (3) having an openness factor of at least 30% ([0009], the area of the links or holes starting from the first surface to the second surface of the carrier material accounts for 25% to 40% of the surface area of the carrier material).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the meshed tape (braid layer 2) of Ai et al. to have an openness factor of at least 30% as taught by Callhoff et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It is noted that since the modified meshed tape of Ai et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the meshed tape will have a meshed tape tear resistance warp/weft of at least 200 N according to DIN 53363 of 2003 (re-claim 1).
Ai et al. and Callhoff et al. also disclose that the cable comprises three insulated conductors twisted one another along the cable longitudinal direction (re-claim 2); the at least one meshed tape has a thickness of from 0.5 to 2.5 mm (see Callhoff, [0060]) (re-claim 3); the non-metallic armour is made of weft yarns and warp yarns interwoven to each other (re-claim 5); the weft yarns and warp yarns are made of a polymeric material (Callhoff, [0014]) (re-claim 6); the weft yarns and warp yarns are made of an inorganic and non-metallic material (Callhoff, [0014], carbon fibers) (re-claim 7); the weft yarns and warp yarns are coated with a coating (2, 2’) (re-claim 9); the coating is made of a polymer material (re-claim 10).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (CN 214796823) in view of Callhoff et al.
Xia et al. discloses a power cable (Fig. 1) comprising: at least one insulated conductor (1/2) extending along a cable longitudinal direction; a bedding layer (3) surrounding the at least one insulated conductor; and a non-metallic armour surrounding the bedding layer, wherein the non-metallic armour is made by a first meshed tape (weaving layer 4) wrapped onto the bedding layer and a second meshed tape (weaving layer 6) surrounding the first meshed tape (re-claims 1 and 4).
Xia et al. does not disclose the meshed tape being helically wound onto the bedding; and having an openness factor of at least 30% (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Xia et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to helically wrap the meshed tape (4) onto the bedding layer (3) of Xia et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable, such as flexibility, since a layer helically wound onto a cable core is well-known in the art.
Callhoff et al. discloses a meshed tape (1) having an openness factor of at least 30% ([0009], the area of the links or holes starting from the first surface to the second surface of the carrier material accounts for 25% to 40% of the surface area of the carrier material).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the meshed tape (1) as taught by Callhoff et al. for the meshed tapes (4 and 6) of Xia et al. to further protect the cable core, the tape having extra layers (first and second coatings).
It is noted that since the meshed tape (of Callhoff) in the modified cable of Xia et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the meshed tape will have a meshed tape tear resistance warp/weft of at least 200 N according to DIN 53363 of 2003 (re-claim 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. in view of Callhoff et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Uematsu et al. (4703134).
Claim 8 additionally recites the weft and warp yarns made of a natural material. Uematsu et al. discloses a cable. Uematsu et al. discloses that a mesh (woven, col. 1, lines 26-29) whose weft and warp yarns made of a natural material (cotton yarns) is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a natural material for the weft and warp yarns (of Callhoff) in the modified meshed tape of Ai et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since a mesh made of natural material is known in the art as taught by Uematsu et al.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. in view of Callhoff et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rambush et al. (2019/0218422).
Claims 11 and 12 additionally recite the meshed tape having outer and inner surfaces, each being at least partially coated with a glue. Rambush et al. discloses a meshed tape (Fig. 2) having outer and inner surfaces, each being at least partially coated with a glue (abstract, at least one face being coated with adhesive 13). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to at least partially coat the outer and inner surfaces of the meshed tape of Ai et al. with a glue as taught by Rambush et al. to provide a bond between the meshed tape and the adjacent layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner merely provides a conclusion, a layer helically wound onto a cable core being well-known in the art, without evidence or sound reasoning. MPEP 2144.03(C) states that “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.”
Examiner, however, in the following provides references to support the position of having a meshed tap helically wound onto another layer is known in the art:
US 10825582, col. 9, lines 22-23, “a metal mesh tape…wound around..tube”
US 2009/0084459, Claim 7, “mesh tape helically wrapped over…sheath”
US 2012/0015816, [0078], “a mesh tape 12 is wound around the structure”
US 2017/0012371, [0087], “layer 360 may be formed by winding…a mesh tape.”
MPEP 2144.03(D) states that “If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final.”
In response to applicant's argument that Callhoff is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Callhoff is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, a non-metallic armor made by at least one meshed tape having an openness factor of at least 30% and tear resistance warp/weft of at least 200 N. Callhoff, likewise, discloses a non-metallic protective (i.e., armor) layer made by at least one meshed tape having an openness factor of at least 30% ([0009]) and tear resistance warp/weft of at least 200 N ([0060]).
Applicant and the Declaration argue that Ai teaches that the braided reinforcement layer can bear a certain amount of tension to disperse the stress and reduce the risk of the cable being damaged. This is a performance that the helically wound meshed tape of the claimed invention could not play. Applicant also argues that Xia’s braided layers of aramid fibers can enhance the tensile strength, wear resistance, and high temperature resistance of the cable, which are unattainable by helically wound meshed tape. Applicant, however, has not provided any evident to support such arguments.
In the Declaration, applicant states that with the mesh having an openness factor of at least 30%, it would improve the thermal conductivity of the mesh. The mesh of Ai and Xia, each was modified by Callhoff to have the openness factor as claimed. Therefore, the modified mesh of Ai and of Xia will have improved thermal conductivity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 at 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