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, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodziony et al. (9035185) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2006-216338).
Bodziony et al. discloses a power cable (10) comprising at least one insulated conductor (11) extending along the cable longitudinal direction; a bedding layer (17) surrounding the at least one insulated conductor; and a non-metallic armor (18) surrounding the bedding layer, wherein the non-metallic armor is made by at least one mesh (col. 3 lines 61-62) having an openness factor of at least 30% (col. 4 lines 5-8) (re-claim 1).
Bodziony et al. does not disclose the mesh being a meshed tape helically wound onto the bedding layer (re-claim 1).
Yamaguchi et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising a cable core (11) and a meshed tape (3) helically wound onto the cable core.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mesh (18) of Bodziony et al. to be a meshed tape which is helically wound, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., onto the bedding layer to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since helically or spirally wrapping a layer around an object is well-known in the art. It noted that since the modified meshed tape of Bodziony 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).
Re-claim 2, Bodziony et al. discloses the at least one insulated conductor comprising three insulated conductors, but does not disclose the three insulated conductors being twisted one another along the cable longitudinal direction. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to twist the insulated conductors of Bodziony one another along the cable longitudinal direction to improve the cable flexibility and keep the conductors in their position since a cable having insulated conductors twisted one another is well-known in the art.
Re-claim 3, Bodziony et al. discloses the mesh having a thickness of from 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col. 4 lines 20-23, thickness of about 1 mm).
Re-claim 5, Bodziony et al. discloses the non-metallic armor being made of weft and warp yarns interwoven to each other.
Re-claim 6, Bodziony et al. discloses the weft and warp yarns being made of a polymeric material (aramid).
Re-claims 9-10, Bodziony et al. discloses the weft and warp yarns (of mesh 18) being coated with a coating (19) which is made of a polymer material.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (CN 214796823) in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Bodziony 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).
Yamaguchi et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising a cable core (11) and a meshed tape (3) helically wound onto the cable core. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mesh of Xia et al. to be a meshed tape which is helically wound, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., onto the bedding layer to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since helically or spirally wrapping a layer around an object is well-known in the art.
Bodziony et al. discloses a power cable comprising a mesh (18) having an openness factor of at least 30% (col. 4 lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mesh of Xia et al. to have an openness factor of at least 30% to improve the bonding between the outer sheath and the inner sheath as taught by Bodziony et al.
It noted that since the modified meshed tape 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).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinkins et al. (2021/0233679) in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Bodziony et al.
Dinkins et al. discloses a power cable (112) comprising at least one insulated conductor extending along the cable longitudinal direction; a bedding layer (304) surrounding the at least one insulated conductor; and a non-metallic armor (302) surrounding the bedding layer, wherein the non-metallic armor is made by at least one mesh (re-claim 1). Dinkins et al. also discloses that the non-metallic armor is made of weft and warp yarns interwoven to each other (re-claim 5), and the weft and warp yarns are made of an inorganic (carbon fiber, [0012] and [0069]) and non-metallic material (re-claim 7).
Dinkins et al. does not disclose the mesh being a meshed tape helically wound onto the bedding; and having an openness factor of at least 30% (re-claim 1).
Yamaguchi et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising a cable core (11) and a meshed tape (3) helically wound onto the cable core. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mesh (302) of Dinkins et al. to be a meshed tape which is helically wound, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., onto the bedding layer to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since helically or spirally wrapping a layer around an object is well-known in the art.
Bodziony et al. discloses a power cable comprising a mesh (18) having an openness factor of at least 30% (col. 4 lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mesh of Dinkins et al. to have an openness factor of at least 30% to improve the bonding between the outer sheath and the inner sheath as taught by Bodziony et al.
It noted that since the modified meshed tape of Dinkins 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).
Re-claims 11-12, Yamaguchi et al. discloses the mesh tape (3) having an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the outer and inner surfaces are at least partially coated with a glue (5, Fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to coat the outer and inner surfaces of the modified mesh of Dinkins et al. with a glue as taught by Yamaguchi et al. to improve the bonding between the meshed tape and the bedding layer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodziony et al. in view Yamaguchi 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 Bodziony 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and 1.132 Declaration filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the braided layer described in Xia must be tightened around the underlying layer, thereby resisting to a tensile force, when the cable is subjected to longitudinal pulling, pointing to [0010] and [0012] of Xia.
Examiner would disagree. Xia discloses the braided layers “can effectively enhance the cable’s tensile strength, abrasion strength, and high temperature resistance” ([0010]) and “chemical resistance, tear resistance, and cut resistance” ([0012]), but there is no disclosure that “the braided must be tightened around the underlying layer, thereby resisting to a tensile force, when the cable is subjected to longitudinal pulling.”
Applicant argues that it is understood from fundamental mechanics that a helically wrapped tape cannot sustain a longitudinal pulling force because the spirals of the helix will be dragged, and that since this knowledge is so basic, no supporting evidence is needed. Examiner would disagree. When the Office Action (OA) relies on the well-known facts, applicant challenges the OA to provide evidence. Vice versa, applicant should provide evidence to support the “basic knowledge” as stated by the applicant.
Applicant argues that it is well-settled that if proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examiner would disagree. First, Xia does not teach away from the mesh tape being helically wrapped. Second, the fact that the inner and outer sheaths of Xia are formed by extrusion ([0048]) and the mesh has opened structure; the braid layers and the sheaths will be integrated or bonded one another. The spirals in the helix will not be dragged.
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