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 Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryeczek (Pub Num 2002/0170739) in view of Tao (CN Pub Num 112625611 U). Ryeczek discloses a cable (Figs 1-17) comprising at least one attention getting material and/or a visual reacting material, such as a chromogenic polymer (i.e. thermochromic material) which will visually and/or physically react to certain critical temperature ranges, such as variations in temperature, magnetic, and/or electrical properties, which are indicative of a hazard and/or fault to notify an operator of such (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Ryeczek discloses a cable (Fig 15) comprising a conductor (142), a jacket (144) surrounding the conductor (142), a connector (124, 126, as shown in Fig 13), a first chromogenic polymer coating (152) applied to a surface of the jacket (144), wherein the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) is configured to change color based on a temperature of the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) exceeding a temperature threshold (Paragraph 77), wherein the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) is applied to the surface of the jacket (144) to indicates part of the cable (Fig 15) associated with temperature (Paragraph 77), a second chromogenic polymer coating (168, Fig 16) to the surface of the jacket (144), wherein the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) being electrically coupled to the core (142, 144) of the cable (Fig 15, Paragraph 77) and is configured to change color based on a voltage in the conductor exceeding a first voltage threshold (Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance), wherein the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) may be adjacent to the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) on the surface of the jacket (144, Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance) and a third chromogenic polymer coating (156) applied to the surface of the jacket (144), wherein the third chromogenic polymer coating (156) may be configured to change color based on a voltage of the second chromogenic polymer coating (156) exceeding a second temperature threshold (Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). With respect to claim 2, Ryeczek discloses that the temperature threshold is based on a predetermined unsafe-handling temperature (Paragraph 15 & 77). With respect to claim 3, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) is applied to the surface of the jacket (144) to indicates a temperature of the cable (Paragraph 77). With respect to claim 4, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) may be visible only when the temperature of the chromogenic polymer coating exceeds the temperature threshold (Paragraph 77). With respect to claim 5, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (130, Fig 13) is applied to a surface of a cable connector (124 & 126, Paragraph 75). With respect to claim 6, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (108, Fig 11) may thermally coupled to the jacket (i.e. heat shrinkable, Paragraph 73). With respect to claim 7, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (146) may be configured to change to a color different from a color of the jacket (144, Paragraphs 31 & 77). With respect to claim 9, Ryeczek discloses that the voltage threshold is different from the first voltage threshold (Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). With respect to claim 10, Ryeczek discloses an apparatus (Fig 13) comprising a first component (124), a second component (126) and a cable (112) configured to connect the first component (124) to the second component (126), wherein the cable (112) may include a conductor (136, as shown in Fig 14), a jacket (138) surrounding the conductor (136, as shown in Fig 14), a connector (122, 124), a first chromogenic polymer coating (152, as shown in Fig 16, which may be incorporated in Fig 13, Paragraph 74) is applied to the surface of the jacket (144) to indicates part of the cable (Fig 15) couple to the first chromogenic polymer coating (Paragraph 7), a second chromogenic polymer coating (168, Fig 16) to the surface of the jacket (144), wherein the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) being thermally coupled to the core (142, 144) of the cable (Fig 15, Paragraph 77) and is configured to change color based on a voltage in the conductor exceeding a first voltage threshold (Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance), and wherein the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) may be adjacent to the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) on the surface of the jacket (144, Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance) and a third chromogenic polymer coating (156) applied to the surface of the jacket (144), wherein the third chromogenic polymer coating (156) may be configured to change color based on a voltage of the second chromogenic polymer coating (156) exceeding a second voltage threshold, Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). With respect to claim 11, Ryeczek discloses that the temperature threshold is based on a predetermined unsafe-handling temperature (Paragraph 15 & 77). With respect to claim 12, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) is applied to the surface of the jacket (144) to indicates a temperature of the cable (Paragraph 77). With respect to claim 13, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (152) may be visible only when the temperature of the chromogenic polymer coating exceeds the temperature threshold (Paragraph 77). With respect to claim 14, Ryeczek discloses that first chromogenic polymer coating (130, Fig 13) is applied to a surface of a cable connector (124 & 126, Paragraph 75). With respect to claim 16, Ryeczek discloses that the second voltage threshold is different from the first voltage threshold (Paragraph 77, Figs 15). With respect to claim 17, Ryeczek discloses that the third chromogenic polymer coating (158) is applied to the surface of the jacket (144). With respect to claim 20, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (146) may be configured to change to a color different from a color of the jacket (144, Paragraphs 31 & 77). With respect to claim 21, Ryeczek discloses that the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) is visible only when the temperature of the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) exceeds a second temperature threshold (Paragraph 77). With respect to claim 22, Ryeczek discloses that the first chromogenic polymer coating (108, Fig 11) may thermally coupled to the jacket (i.e. heat shrinkable, Paragraph 73).
While Ryeczek discloses that the chromogenic polymer coating is applied to the surface of the jacket as a label (Paragraph 44), which may indicates a temperature of the cable, Ryeczek doesn’t disclose the chromogenic polymer coating is applied to the surface of the jacket as a label (claims 3-4 & 12-13), nor the second chromogenic polymer coating being applied to the surface of the jacket as a second label (claims 17 & 21).
Tao teaches a thermochromic label (Figs 1-2) for usage with a cable, which is attached to the outer surface of the cable jacket and changes color when overheated under a current load, while being good in flexibility (abstract), and having high fire warning accuracy, good fireproofing performance, high viscosity (Paragraph n004). Specifically, with respect to claims 3-4, 12-13, 17, and 21, Tao discloses a chromogenic polymer coating is applied to the surface of the jacket and indicates a temperature of the cable (abstract), wherein the chromogenic polymer coating is a thermochromic label (10, Fig 2) that is applied to the outer surface of the cable jacket by adhesive (Paragraph n0051).
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 cable of Ryeczek to comprise the first and second chromogenic polymer coating configurations to be chromogenic labels as taught by Tao because Tao teaches that such a configuration provides a thermochromic label (Figs 1-2) for usage with a cable, which is attached to the outer surface of the cable jacket and changes color when overheated under a current load, while being good in flexibility (abstract), and having high fire warning accuracy, good fireproofing performance, high viscosity (Paragraph n004) and 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following:
Neither Ryeczek nor Tao alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the
arrangement of first chromogenic polymer coating applied to the surface of the jacket as a label configured to change color based on temperature exceeding a temperature threshold, a second chromogenic polymer coating applied to the surface of the jacket and electrically coupled to the core of the cable, wherein the second chromogenic polymer coating being configured to change color based on voltage in the conductor exceeding a first voltage threshold and a third chromogenic polymer coating applied to the surface of the jacket, wherein the third chromogenic polymer coating is configured to change color based on a voltage exceeding a second voltage threshold.
The claims thus recite a mixed sensing arrangement including a temperature responsive first coating and multiple voltage responsive coating triggered at different voltage thresholds, such is not taught or suggested by either Ryeczek nor Tao.
The reconstruction of the claimed arrangement by assuming that one Ryeczek figure may contain features of another figure by inferring voltage threshold operation from current related discussion is improper and does not identify any actual teaching or suggestion of the claimed first and second thresholds.
With respect to arguments A-C, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, the courts have been consistent that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Secondly, the courts have also been consistent that patents are relevant for all they disclose. ' In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 , 1332- 33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).”
Given the above stated comments, the examiner respectfully submits that Ryeczek clearly teaches a cable comprising at least one attention getting material and/or a visual reacting material, such as a chromogenic polymer (i.e. thermochromic material) which will visually and/or physically react to certain critical temperature ranges, such as variations in temperature, magnetic, and/or electrical properties, which are indicative of a hazard and/or fault to notify an operator of such (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ryeczek also discloses that these at least one attention getting material and/or a visual reacting material, may be provided in an insulation covering, cable sheath, or cable jacket (see below), at different locations of the previous mentioned coverings, to indicate different magnitudes of a hazard and/or fault and/or producing different responses to the same magnitude of hazard and/or fault (see below)
PNG
media_image2.png
80
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
372
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ryeczek also discloses that the attention getting means may be visual, such as coloring or lettering, audio means, or smelling means for the visual impaired (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
318
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ryeczek illustrates some of the attention getting means in Figures 1-17. While the applicant argues that the reconstruction of the claimed arrangement by assuming that one Ryeczek figure may contain features of another figure, Ryeczek clearly teaches in the description that the illustrations are merely that and that all of the Figures may have attention getting means from other Figures (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
290
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
476
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
476
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
138
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
702
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Based on the above descriptions, Ryczek clearly teaches that the different Figures may be incorporated various attention getting stimulation means, that applied to the various surfaces of the cable, at different locations on the surface of the cable, and indicating various faults based on temperature, current, physical damage, electrical fields, etc, wherein the attention getting stimulation means may be configured to change color based on temperature and/or display visual messages when a temperature threshold and/or electrical fields are exceeded.
Specifically, Ryeczek states that such faults may be voltage load resistance (Paragraph 40) and hazards may be overloads, sparks, arcs, pre-shorting conditions, and open and closed circuits (i.e. short circuits, Paragraph 41), in which the cable can detect and/or locate its own internal electrical malfunction (Paragraph 14). It is understood in the art of cables, voltage is needed in order to have current flow in a cable. The amount of voltage applied to a cable having resistance results in the amount of current that flows in the cable. It is also known in the art of cables that the amount current flow has a direct link to the amount of power a cable has. Specifically, Ohm’s Law states the V (input voltage) = I (current) times R (resistance), wherein power can be calculated as P (power)=V (voltage) times I (current), or I2R or V2/R). The amount of power/current flow/input voltage of a cable is directly linked to rise in the temperature (i.e. heat) of that cable. Therefore, while voltage is not clearly stated as a means for indicating a fault, voltage results in current/temperature faults as indicated in Paragraph 77 (i.e. shorts result in larger currents that heat up the cable, resulting in higher and dangerous temperatures to indicate a fault). Secondly, Figure 17 of Ryeczek clearly details that current can be utilized as an indicator, for instance, when the current flow of the cable is exceeded. Again, the amount of current is directly related to the input voltage times resistance, so Ryeczek clearly inherently discloses polymer coating being applied to a cable jacket that include one coating indicating a voltage and/or resistance of a conductor in the cable, that may result in a fault and/or hazard when a voltage threshold is exceeded. Even in a situation, when input voltage doesn’t exist (i.e. open circuit, no current will be present, as V=0=IR, therefore I=0 since resistance is constant), an electrical fault (as indicated in Figure 3 at 50) will still exist as an open circuit and would be indicated as shown in Figure 3.
In light of the above stated comments, the examiner respectfully submits that Ryeczek discloses the second chromogenic polymer coating (168) being thermally coupled to the core (142, 144) of the cable (Fig 15, Paragraph 77) and is configured to change color based on a voltage in the conductor (Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). While such is not specifically explained in the Ryeczek, indicators coupled to monitor voltage thresholds must be present in order to indicate electrical faults and a third chromogenic polymer coating (156) to the surface of the jacket (144), wherein the third chromogenic polymer coating (156) may be configured to change color based on a voltage of the second chromogenic polymer coating (156) exceeding a second voltage threshold, Paragraphs 78-79, Figs 16-17, i.e. Fig 16 may contain any of the features of Fig 17, wherein Fig 17 shows that the cable shows a fault indicated by an electrical overload, i.e. an electrical short showing the current amperage, an increase in current means an increase in voltage, since I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). Ryeczek discloses that tape, as illustrated in Figure 11, may be attached to the outer surface of the cable, Ryeczek doesn’t disclose the chromogenic polymer coating is applied to the surface of the jacket as a label (claims 3-4 & 12-13), nor the second chromogenic polymer coating being applied to the surface of the jacket as a second label (claims 17 & 21).
Tao was relied on for its teaching a thermochromic label (Figs 1-2) for usage with a cable, which is attached to the outer surface of the cable jacket and changes color when overheated under a current load, while being good in flexibility (abstract), and having high fire warning accuracy, good fireproofing performance, high viscosity (Paragraph n004), which is applied to the surface of the jacket and indicates a temperature of the cable (abstract), wherein the chromogenic polymer coating is a thermochromic label (10, Fig 2) that is applied to the outer surface of the cable jacket by adhesive (Paragraph n0051).
In light of the teaching of Tao, the examiner respectfully submits that 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 cable of Ryeczek to comprise the first and second chromogenic polymer coating configurations to be chromogenic labels as taught by Tao because Tao teaches that such a configuration provides a thermochromic label (Figs 1-2) for usage with a cable, which is attached to the outer surface of the cable jacket and changes color when overheated under a current load, while being good in flexibility (abstract), and having high fire warning accuracy, good fireproofing performance, high viscosity (Paragraph n004) and 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 light of the above stated comments, the examiner respectfully submits that Ryeczek discloses the claimed limitations of claims 1-7, 9-14, 16, 17, and 20-22, and that all of the rejections as disclosed above as proper and just.
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
July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights