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
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 1-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0027152 to Holzmueller et al. (“Holzmueller”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0209769 to Bartolin et al. (“Bartolin”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,260,516 to Blackmore (“Blackmore”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 7, Holzmueller discloses an electrically insulated cable comprising at least one conductor, a polyimide insulation layer disposed about the conductor, and a fluoropolymer tape layer disposed about the polyimide insulation layer. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Holzmueller discloses that the at least one conductor can comprise a stranded conductor or compressed stranded conductor. Paragraph [0020]. The polyimide insulation corresponds to the claimed inner wrap because Holzmueller discloses that polyimide insulation comprises a polyimide film tape sandwiched between inner and outer adhesive layers comprising a fluoropolymer. Paragraph [0021]. Holzmueller discloses that an outer wrap is present around the inner wrap and comprises a fluoropolymer tape, such as a PTFE tape. Paragraphs [0022] to [0023]. Holzmueller does not disclose that the polyimide film comprises an electrically insulative, corona resistant composite filler. Bartolin is also related electrically conductive and insulated cables. See, e.g., paragraph [0002], entire document. Bartolin teaches that polyimide film layers can have improved dielectric strength, tensile strength, elongation, and corona resistance using a corona resistant composite filler. Paragraphs [0003] to [0005]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a corona resistant composite filler to the polyimide layer disclosed by Holzmueller in order to improve strength, elongation, and corona resistance, as shown to be known in the related art by Bartolin. Holzmueller is silent with regard to the amount of void space available inside the inner wrap. However, Holzmueller does disclose the fact that “stranded and compacted stranded conductors provide improved flexibility” compared to solid conductors, paragraph [0020], thus indicating that the presence of void space (created using multiple side-by-side strands) is desirable depending on the need for flexibility versus efficiency of the conductor. Blackmore is also related to insulated cable wires comprising stranded conductors. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Blackmore teaches that a typical void space of a stranded conductor is about 24% and a typical void space of a compressed stranded conductor is about 16% to 19%. Column 1, lines 14-27. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a void space in the range of 2% to 43% in the stranded conductor disclosed by Holzmueller in order to provide well known and established void values to enable sufficient flexibility values sought by Holzmueller, while maintain satisfactory conductive performance in the field of electric cables, as shown to be known by Blackmore. With regard to Claim 2, Holzmueller discloses that the conductor can comprise a coated copper wire, with examples of the coating being tin, nickel, or silver. Paragraph [0020]. With regard to Claim 3, Bartolin teaches that the corona resistant composite filler should be present in the polyimide film in an amount of 5% to 25% by weight. Paragraph [0115]. With regard to Claim 4, Holzmueller discloses the fluoropolymer adhesive can comprise polytetrafluoroethylene, perfluoro alkoxy resin, and blends thereof. Paragraphs [0012] and [0021]. With regard to Claim 5, Holzmueller does not disclose crosslinking the fluoropolymer layers, nor does Holzmueller recite the use of crosslinking agent for such layers. With regard to Claim 6, the person having ordinary skill in the art can select the same polytetrafluoroethylene, perfluoro alkoxy resin, and blends thereof for the first and second fluoropolymer adhesive layers without any undue burden, within the confines of the disclosure of Holzmueller because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960). With regard to Claims 12 to 14, Bartolin discloses that the corona resistant composite filler contains an organic component, such as an organo-siloxane moiety or an organo-metaloxane moiety, and an inorganic ceramic oxide component, such as silica, alumina, titania, and/or zirconia. Paragraphs [0113] and [0114]. With regard to Claim 15, Bartolin discloses that the weight ratio of the organic component to the inorganic ceramic oxide component is 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 or 1.0. Paragraph [0113].
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzmueller in view of Bartolin and Blackmore, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0152591 to Zheng (“Zheng”).
With regard to Claims 8 and 16, Holzmueller does not disclose the thickness of the base film tape or the thickness ratio of the first and second fluoropolymer coating to the polyimide film. Zheng is related to polyimide composite film materials containing first and second fluoropolymer layers for use in electrical insulation of cables. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Zheng teaches that “the first fluoropolymer layer 18 and the second fluoropolymer layer 20 independently each have a thickness of from about 0.05 to about 0.5 mil [and] … the thickness of the polyimide layer 12 ranges from about 0.5 to about 5 mil.” Zheng illustrates in Figure 1 that each of the fluoropolymer layers should roughly have a thickness approximately half that of the polyimide layer, but certainly a smaller thickness. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a composite film thickness in the range of 25 to 40 microns and thickness ratio of the first fluoropolymer coating to the polyimide film and a thickness ratio of the second fluoropolymer coating to the polyimide film to be in a range of from 0.01:1 to 0.5:1 in the polyimide film layer disclosed by Holzmueller in order to provide dimensions that are appropriate for use in insulation layers for electrical cables, as shown to be known in the art by Zheng. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzmueller in view of Bartolin and Blackmore, as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of or as evidenced by Calmont Wire & Cable data sheet obtained from internet archive dated July 15, 2019, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190715021503/www.calmont.com/wp-content/uploads/calmont-eng-wire-gauge.pdf (“Calmont”).
With regard to the number of strands recited in Claims 9 and 10 and the concentric configuration recited in Claim 11, Holzmueller teaches that an increased number of strands offers improved flexibly. Paragraph [0020]. Moreover, Blackmore establishes that area reductions of each of the wires in one or more areas can be used to increase contact and proximity of the wires in a concentric strand configuration. Column 3, lines 56-66. However, Holzmueller does not establish the number of strands in a stranded conductor or the concentric configuration. Calmont provides a data sheet for solid and stranded conductors for use in electrical cables. See entire document. Calmont shows that total strand number can be tailored to provide desired cable diameter, weight, break strength, and electrical resistance. Calmont teaches that the number of strands in a stranded wire can include well known values of 7, 10, 16, 19, 25, 40, 64, 100, 105, and 150. Calmont also shows that the stranded conductors can be configured as a concentric type. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a number of strands that is less than 100 or a number of strands that is greater than 100, or to provide a concentric type configuration, in the stranded conductor disclosed by Holzmueller in order to provide desired end use characteristics related to cable diameter, weight, break strength, and electrical resistance, as shown to be well known in the art by Calmont. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to the property of contact length being in the range of 15% to 69%, in the range of 15% to 79%, and in the range of 10% to 70%, even though Holzmueller, as combined with Bartolin, Blackmore, and Calmont, does not specifically teach these ranges for percentage of the length of the inner wrap that is in intimate contact with the outer surface of the stranded conductor, it is reasonable to presume that such values are inherent to the combination of references. Support for the presumption is found because the combination of references teaches similar materials, i.e., a stranded conductor offered at a multiplicity of strand levels, processed in similar manner, i.e. arranged concentrically and wrapped with an inner wrapping comprising polyimide film sandwiched between fluoropolymer layers, to produce a similar end use product, i.e., an electrical cable. The burden is upon the Applicant to show that the dimensional layout of the stranded conductor, taught by the combination of Holzmueller with Bartolin, Blackmore, and Calmont, would not possess such a feature. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). “[I]nherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation at issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.” Persion Pharmaceuticals. V. Alvogen Malta Oper., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzmueller in view of Bartolin and Blackmore, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,616,177 to Gumerman (“Gumerman”).
With regard to Claim 17, Holzmueller discloses that wrap overlap amount can vary depending on wrap design and desired thickness. Paragraph [0012]. Bartolin teaches that the amount of overlap can very depending upon the angle of the wrap. Paragraph [0164]. Gumerman is also related to laminar structures comprising polyimide and fluoropolymer for use in electrical insulation. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Gumerman teaches that a suitable amount of overlap using such insulation structures in electrical cables is 50%. Example 9. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the inner wrap of Holzmueller with an overlap amount less than 66%, since such an amount is established as being suitable for use in electrical cable, as shown to be known by Gumerman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789