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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 3, the abstract recites the terms “comprise”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
In lines 3-6, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content.
Drawings
Based on the admissions of the amendment submitted on December 29, 2025, the drawings are now hereby objected to for the following reasons:
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 21-27 and 30-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafreniere et al (Pub Num 2022/0044841, herein referred to as Lafreniere) in view of Tanner (Pub Num 2014/0238718). Lafreniere discloses an armored cable (Figs 1-13) comprising a metal ribbon (i.e. metallic sheets) assembled as an outer armor that is relatively flat and creates smaller valleys between convolutions that allows cable installers to more easily pull the cable through supports, cable trays, etc. with less hang ups and friction (Paragraph 36), thereby having a smaller diameter and bend radius for installation, while still meeting performance requirements for MC cables, such as crush resistance and flexibility (Paragraph 36). Specifically, with respect to claim 21, Lafreniere discloses an armored electrical cable (100, Fig 1) comprising a metallic sheath (105), wherein the metallic sheath (105) is formed by a plurality of metal ribbons (Figs 4A-4H) having a cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H) comprising an interlock receiver (located at 120) extending from a first end (left end) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H) to an innermost point (located at left 125) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H), an interlock protrusion (located at 124) extending from a second end (right end) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H) to an outermost point (located adjacent of 139) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H), and an intermediate segment (122) extending from the innermost point (located at left 125) of the cross sectional profile (Fig 4H) to the outermost point (located adjacent of 139) of the cross sectional profile (Fig 4H), wherein a maximum angle of incline of the intermediate segment (122) is less than 20o (i.e. 0.1-15o, Paragraph 43) and the intermediate segment (222 as shown in Fig 6) has a width of 0.188 inches (Fig 6). With respect to claim 24, Lafreniere discloses that the total axial height of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 1) is equal to the interlock height (Figs 1-2). With respect to claims 25-27, Lafreniere disclose that the interlock receiver (located at 120) and the interlock protrusion (located at 124) has a curl in the range of 1-25o (Paragraph 46). With respect to claim 30, Lafreniere discloses that the intermediate segment (122) does not comprise an undulation (Fig 4B, surface is a straight line). With respect to claim 31, Lafreniere discloses that a variation of the angle of incline of the intermediate segment (122) maybe less than 10o per mm (i.e. 0.1-9o, Paragraph 43). With respect to claim 32, Lafreniere discloses that the intermediate segment (222 as shown in Fig 6) has a width of 0.188 inches (Fig 6). With respect to claim 33, Lafreniere discloses a cable sheath (105) comprising metal ribbons (Figs 4A-4C) having a cross-sectional profile comprising an interlock receiver (located at 120) extending from a first end (left end) of the cross-sectional profile (Figs 4A-4C) to an innermost point (located at left 125) of the cross-sectional profile (Figs 4A-4C), an interlock protrusion (located at 124) extending from a second end (right end) of the cross-sectional profile (Figs 4A-4C) to an outermost point (located adjacent of 139) of the cross-sectional profile (Figs 4A-4C), and an intermediate segment (122) extending between the interlock receiver (located at 120) to the interlock protrusion (located at 124, Fig 4B), wherein a maximum angle of incline of the intermediate segment (122) is less than 45o (Paragraph 43) and the intermediate segment (222 as shown in Fig 6) has a width of 0.188 inches (Fig 6), wherein the metallic ribbons (Figs 3-4B) are wrapped helically such that the interlock protrusion (located at 125) of a first convolution of the metal ribbon is secured within the interlock receiver (located at 120) of a second convolution of the metal ribbon (Fig 4B), to form a plurality of interlocking convolutions (Figs 3-4B). With respect to claim 34, Lafreniere discloses that the armored cable (100) comprising the cable sheath (105) surrounding a conductor core (102, 110).
While Lafreniere discloses the intermediate segment having a width, Lafreniere doesn’t necessarily disclose the intermediate segment having a width of the intermediate segment is in a range from two to ten times the interlock height (claim 21), nor the cross-sectional profile having an interlock height is in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm (claim 22), nor the interlock height being in a range from about 1 mm to about 3 mm (claim 23), nor the interlock receiver having a curl in a range from 30o to 75o (claim 25), nor the interlock protrusion having a curl in a range from 30o to 75o (claim 26), nor a curl of the interlock receiver is within 15o the curl of the interlock protrusion (claim 27), nor the width of the intermediate segment being in a range from three times the interlock height to five times the interlock height (claim 32).
Tanner teaches an armored cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a metal ribbon (i.e. metallic sheets) assembled as an outer armor that is relatively flat (Paragraph 1), while providing better impact resistance to the cable and greater resistance to compressive stresses than that of a flat profile (Paragraph 14). Specifically, with respect to claims 21 & 32, Tanner teaches an armored cable (100) comprising an outer sheath (104), wherein the outer sheath (104) is formed by a plurality of metal ribbons (106) having a cross-sectional profile comprising an interlock receiver (110) extending from a first end of the cross-sectional profile to an innermost point of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 2B), an interlock protrusion (114) extending from a second end of the cross-sectional profile to an outermost point of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 2B) and an intermediate segment (116) extending between the interlock receiver (110) to the interlock protrusion (114), wherein the cross sectional profile has an interlock height of 0.095 inches (Paragraph 17) and a width of 0.5-0.75 inches (while the width is the total width of the ribbon, 0.5 is 5.26 times the height of 0.095 > than the intermediate width, therefore the width of intermediate portion maybe less than 5.26 times which overlaps the claimed range of 2-10 times). With respect to claims 22-23, Tanner discloses that the cross sectional profile has an interlock height of being in a range from about 1 mm to about 3 mm (i.e. 0.095 inches = 2.4 mm, Paragraph 17).
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 metal ribbon of Lafreniere to comprise the interlock height being within the range of 0.5-5 mm configuration as taught by Tanner because Tanner teaches that such a configuration provides an armored cable (Figs 1-3) comprising a metal ribbon (i.e. metallic sheets) assembled as an outer armor that is relatively flat (Paragraph 1), while providing better impact resistance to the cable and greater resistance to compressive stresses than that of a flat profile (Paragraph 14), and 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.
With respect to claims 25-27, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the metal ribbon of Lafreniere to comprise the interlock receiver and interlock protrusion to have a curl in a range from 30o to 75o and a curl of the interlock receiver being within 15o the curl of the interlock protrusion, and 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.
With respect to claim 35, modified Lafreniere discloses that the cable has a reduced pull resistance characterized by a standard deviation of the pulling force of less than 1 N when pulled through an aluminum stud wall at a pull speed in a range from about 10 to about 50 feet per minute (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 36, Modified Lafreniere discloses the cable, wherein any of the maximum pull resistance, the minimum pull resistance, the average pull resistance, and the standard deviation of the pull resistance is reduced when pulled through an aluminum stud wall, compared to an otherwise identical armored cable comprising a cable sheath having a cross-sectional profile with a maximum angle of incidence greater than 45o at a pull speed in a range from about 10 feet per minute to about 50 feet per minute in a forward direction (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 37, Modified Lafreniere discloses the cable, wherein any of the maximum pull resistance, the minimum pull resistance, the average pull resistance, and the standard deviation of the pull resistance is reduced when pulled through an aluminum stud wall, compared to an otherwise identical armored cable comprising a cable sheath having a cross-sectional profile with a maximum angle of incidence greater than about 45o at a pull speed in a range from about 10 feet per minute to about 50 feet per minute in a reverse direction (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 38, Modified Lafreniere discloses the cable, wherein a crush resistance of the armored cable is 1000 lbf or greater (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 39, Modified Lafreniere discloses the cable, wherein the armored cable meets or exceeds the UL 1569 requirements for crush resistance (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics). With respect to claim 40, Modified Lafreniere discloses the cable, wherein the armored cable meets or exceeds the UL requirements for pull force prior to failure (i.e. all of the claimed structure is taught by modified Lafreniere prior art and therefore the modified prior art inherently exhibits the same characteristics).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Lafreniere doesn’t teach or suggest a metal ribbon having a cross sectional profile wherein a maximum angle of incline of the intermediate segment is less than 20o.
B) The second section of Lafreniere is not equivalent to the presently claimed intermediate segment but rather encompasses only a portion of the intermediate segment, thereby excluding incline from the second section by definition.
C) The presently claimed metal ribbon demonstrated an unexpected improved pull resistance relative to Lafreniere (Comparative Example 2) and therefore is not obvious based on the teaching or Lafreniere, as denoted by Example 2, Paragraph 58-59 of published application 2024/0296973.
D) Lafreniere teaches away from the claimed invention by states that the maximum angle of incline within the firs section has to be relatively steep in order to define a valley and therefore teaches against a more gradual incline (eg less than 45 o)
With respect to arguments A, B, & D, the examiner respectfully traverses. The applicant submits that the area as defined by the innermost and the outermost section of the intermediate segment of the claimed invention is as illustrated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the specification defined the innermost and the outermost intermediate segment as being:
[0034] For purposes of this disclosure, the intermediate section can be considered to span the length of the profile for each convolution when in an interlocking position. Thus, as exemplified by FIGs. 2 and 3, the interlocking position can comprise where the interlocking protrusion is adjacent and in contact with the interlock receiver, by action of an axial pulling force. A proximal endpoint of the intermediate segment therefore can be measured as the portion of the profile extending from the position of the interlock receiver at which the interlock protrusion terminates in the pulled position. A distal endpoint of the intermediate segment can be the position of the interlock protrusion at the interlock height.
[0035] The intermediate segment also may be defined as having a both a nominal length (e.g., the length of the metal ribbon) as well as a width defined as the longitudinal distance relative to the cable axis traversed by the connector between successive interlocks when assembled. As an Example, FIG. 3 provides an example wherein intermediate segment 104 has a width of 7 mm. In certain aspects, the width of the intermediate segment can be in a range from 2 mm to 20 mm, or from 5 to 10 mm.
[0036] In certain aspects, the sheath profile also may be defined by in interlock height. Generally, the interlock height will also equal the total axial height of the sheath profile, provided the intermediate segment extends from a point closest to the cable axis at the interlock receiver to a point furthest away from the cable axis where the interlock protrusion begins. In such aspects, the interlock height therefore can be defined as the axial distance between the innermost point of the armor sheath and the outermost point of the armor sheath within the interlocking section. As pictured in FIG. 3, the interlock height 108 can be about 1.6 mm in certain aspects. In other aspects, the interlock height can be in a range from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, from 0.2 mm to 3 mm, or from 1 to 2 mm. In other aspects, the intermediate segment can be characterized by a ratio between its width and the profile height. In certain aspects, the width of the intermediate segment can be in a range from two times the interlock height to ten times the interlock height, from three times the interlock height to eight times the interlock height, or from three times the interlock height to five times the interlock height.
[0037] It follows that the intermediate segment further may be defined by a maximum angle of incline relative to the cable axis. Conventional designs of U.S. Pat. No. 11,587,699 seek to provide extended flat portions along the profile (e.g., a 0° angle of incline) and minimize gaps between those flat portions to reduce the amount of the gaps occurring along the dimension of the cable axis and along the exterior of the cable sheath. As a result, conventional low profile designs can include sharp angles of incline along the length of the cable exterior, e.g., by narrowing a valley width as shown in FIGs. 1-2. Inventive Examples of the present disclosure – contrary to the conventional approach of minimizing gaps at the interlock receiver – can extend the relevant dimension to a degree that reduces the maximum angle of incline along the convolution. Surprisingly, reducing the maximum angle of incline along the convolution allowed the cable to be pulled along an axial dimension with a reduced pulling force due to the lack of abrupt increases in the angle of incline along the metal sheath profile. In certain aspects, the maximum angle of incline throughout the intermediate segment can be less than 60 degrees, less than 45 degrees, less than 40 degrees, less than 35 degrees, less than 30 degrees, less than 25 degrees, or less than 20 degrees. Further, the variation in the angle of incline along the length of the convolution can be less than 3° per mm, less than 5° per mm, less than 10° per mm, less than 15° per mm, throughout the sheath profile. Alternatively, a maximum variation throughout the length of the cable can be in a range from 1° to 20 ° per mm, from 3° to 10° per mm, or from 3° to 5° per mm. Without being bound by theory, the relatively constant angle of incline as described also may allow the cable sheath to be pulled in an opposite direction (e.g., in the direction from the distal end to the proximal end of the cable), with a reduced pulling force
As defined by the specification, the applicant has admitted on the record, that the prior art reference, Lafreniere (Pub Num 2002/0044841), is illustrated in Figure 2 of the applicant’s specification. The applicant also admitted on the record, that Figures 1 & 2, both may comprise intermediate segments that have maximum angle of incline of the Figures 1 & 2, may be less than 20 degrees. Therefore, Lafreniere clearly teaches the intermediate segments having a maximum angle of incline of less than 20 degrees.
However, the applicant has attempted to overcome the teaching of Lafreniere by defining the intermediate segments extending from an innermost portion of the cross sectional profile to the outermost point of the cross sectional profile to overcome the teachings of Lafreniere. While Lafreniere states that the intermediate segments only extend between extending between the interlock receiver (located at 120) to the interlock protrusion (located at 125, Fig 4H), the applicant cannot ignore the illustration of the intermediate segments, along with first and section sections. Specifically, just because the sections are labeled differently, doesn’t negate the fact that the drawings illustrate the same configurations of the entire metallic sheath. The distance between the same section of metal sheath looks almost identical (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Secondly, the applicant has stated that the applicant’s Figure 2 illustrates Fig 4A of Lafreniere, but clearly Lafreniere teaches other embodiments, of which the applicant hasn’t tested. Specifically, the examiner stated that Paragraph 41 and Figure 4H, teach that the first section (120) may include flatten sections and that adding flatten sections to the first section (120) may increase movement and create a more flexible overall sheath (105). Lafreniere also teaches in Paragraph 36, that the cable itself is made in a flat profile, creating smaller valleys between adjacent convolutions thereby allowing cable installers to more easily pull the cable through studs, cable trays, supports, etc. with less hang ups and friction. Lastly, Lafreniere also teaches that the second segment may also extend to a non zero angle of between 1-25 degrees, which is also within the range of less than 20 degrees (Paragraph 46), as recited by claim 1 (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
540
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the only section of question, would be if the first section of the metallic sheath portion is formed having an incline of less than 20 degrees. Based on the teachings of Lafreniere, the discussions of Lafreniere by the applicant in paragraph 37 above, and the illustrations of alternative configurations, Lafreniere doesn’t teach against the maximum incline being less than 20 degrees, but rather teaches an interlock protrusion (located at 124) extending from a second end (right end) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H) to an outermost point (located adjacent of 139) of the cross-sectional profile (Fig 4H), and an intermediate segment (122) extending from the innermost point (located at left 125) of the cross sectional profile (Fig 4H) to the outermost point (located adjacent of 139) of the cross sectional profile (Fig 4H), wherein a maximum angle of incline of the intermediate segment (122) is less than 20o (i.e. 0.1-15o, Paragraph 43) and the intermediate segment (222 as shown in Fig 6) has a width of 0.188 inches (Fig 6).
With respect to argument C, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, it must be stated that the testing data is based on one embodiment, specifically, the applicant states Figure 4A is the figure that exhibits the testing results as detailed. That figure illustrates one of the embodiments having very deep pockets. However, again no testing data exist, detailing alternative embodiments based on the illustrations or further teachings of Lafreniere. Specifically, Lafreniere teaches making the angles of interlocking portions smaller for the exact same reason as the applicants (see Paragraph 36 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
134
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Absent any other testing of alterative configurations are taught by Lafreniere, the examiner respectfully submits based on the teachings and illustrations of Lafreniere, that such characteristics are not unexpected and therefore are expected as taught by Lafreniere.
In light of the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection is proper and just.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various armored cables having inter- locking metallic sheaths.
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
September 22, 2025