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.
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) 1-9, 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidani et al (WO 2021/119804A, herein referred to as Javidani) in view of Keller et al (Pat Num 2,003,297, herein referred to as Keller). Javidani discloses a cable comprising a high strength high formable armor that exhibits improved formability and exhibiting improved rollability by achieving lower required torque at high temperature, while meeting or exceeding the ambient temperature strength and formability requirements for high strength applications (Page 2, lines 1-5). Specifically, with respect to claims 1-2, Javidani discloses a cable (Fig 4) comprising a cable core including one or more conductors (located at 413, Fig 4, Page 4, lines 15-23) wherein an interlocking armor layer (411) surrounding the cable core (located at 413), wherein the interlocking armor layer (411) may be formed from an aluminum alloy (Page 5, lines 5-6), wherein the aluminum alloy comprising about 1.3% to about 1.7%, by weight of magnesium (i.e. 1.0-2.0, preferably 1.5, Page 5, lines 5-16), about 0.2% to about 0.95%, by weight of manganese (Page 5, lines 17-27) and the balance is aluminum (i.e. all of the elements equal about 2.65, therefore aluminum =97.35 %, see Pages 5-7). With respect to claim 3, Javidani discloses that the aluminum alloy comprises about 1.4% to about 1.6%, by weight of magnesium (i.e. 1.5, Page 5, lines 16). With respect to claim 4, Javidani discloses that the aluminum alloy comprises about 0.2% to about 0.95%, by weight of manganese (Page 5, lines 17-27). With respect to claim 5, Javidani discloses that the aluminum alloy further comprises up to about 0.15%, by weight of chromium (i.e. 0.05-0.15%, Page 5, lines 28-32). With respect to claim 6, Javidani discloses that the aluminum alloy further comprises up to about 0.2%, by weight of iron (i.e. less than 0.8, Page 7, lines 12-17). With respect to claim 7, Javidani discloses that the aluminum alloy further comprises up to about 0.15%, by weight of total impurities (i.e. less than 0.1%, Page 7, lines 1-5). With respect to claim 8, Javidani discloses that the cable (413) meets or exceeds the requirements of one or more of Underwriters Laboratory (“UL”) 4 (2021)(Page 13, lines 12-20).
However, Javidani doesn’t necessarily disclose the armor layer comprising about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight, manganese (claims 1, 12, & 13), nor the aluminum alloy comprises about 0.1% to about 0.12%, by weight, manganese (claim 4), nor the interlocking armor layer meets or exceeds the requirements of UL 1 (2023) (claims 9 & 20).
Keller teaches an aluminum alloy that attains high strength, high tensile strength, high yield strength, without recourse to special thermal treatment, not aging upon standing at ordinary or slightly elevated temperatures after having been quickly cooled from the annealing temperature, while obtaining a high strength in an alloy without suffering a loss in corrosion resistance (Col 2, lines 10-20). Specifically, with respect to claims 1, 4, 12, & 13, Keller teaches an aluminum alloy containing about about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight of manganese (i.e. 0.1-1.0%); and the balance is aluminum (Col 2, lines 10-13). With respect to claims 9 & 20, Keller teaches an aluminum alloy that meets or exceeds the requirements of UL 2 (2023)(i.e., see tables showing tensile strengths in excess of 62,700 lbs/sq in and yield strengths in excess of 56,200 lbs/sq in (Page 2, Col 1, lines 63-75).
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 containing the interlocking aluminum alloy armor of Javidani to comprise the aluminum alloy containing about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight of manganese (i.e. 0.1-1.0%) to meet or exceed the UL 1 (2023) standard configuration as taught by Keller because Keller teaches that such a configuration provides an aluminum alloy that attains high strength, high tensile strength, high yield strength, without recourse to special thermal treatment, not aging upon standing at ordinary or slightly elevated temperatures after having been quickly cooled from the annealing temperature, while obtaining a high strength in an alloy without suffering a loss in corrosion resistance (Col 2, lines 10-20) 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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidani (WO 2021/119804A) in view of Keller (Pat Num 2,003,297), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Javidani), further in view of Fung et al (CN Pat Num 202394559, herein referred to as Fung). Modified Javidani discloses a cable comprising a high strength high formable armor that exhibits improved formability and exhibiting improved rollability by achieving lower required torque at high temperature, while meeting or exceeding the ambient temperature strength and formability requirements for high strength applications (Page 2, lines 1-5), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
However, modified Javidani doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable having a bend radius that is a minimum of nine times the overall diameter of the cable (claim 10).
Fung teaches a cable (Fig 1) comprising an interlocked armor sheath having high flexibility and strength (abstract), while using abundant and inexpensive resources that significantly reduces the cable manufacturing costs, cable weight, and improves the cable resistance to mechanical damage (Paragraph 6), and while also having a reliable connection and good heat dissipation (Paragraph 28). Specifically, with respect to claim 10, Fung teaches a cable (Fig 1) comprising a cable core (1, 2) including one or more conductors (1) and an interlocking armor layer (5) surrounding the cable core (1, 2), wherein the interlocking armor layer (5) is formed from an 5000 series aluminum alloy (Paragraph 17), wherein the aluminum alloy comprises about 2.2- 2.8%, by weight of magnesium, about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight of manganese (i.e. 0.1%) and the balance being aluminum (Paragraph 15), wherein the cable (Fig 1) has a bend radius that is a minimum of nine times the overall diameter of the cable (i.e. minimum of seven times the overall diameter incorporates at least nine times the overall diameter, Paragraph 24).
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 modified Javidani to comprise the cable having a bend radius that is a minimum of nine times the overall diameter of the cable configuration as taught by Fung because Fung teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Fig 1) comprising an interlocked armor sheath having high flexibility and strength (abstract), while using abundant and inexpensive resources that significantly reduces the cable manufacturing costs, cable weight, and improves the cable resistance to mechanical damage (Paragraph 6), and while also having a reliable connection and good heat dissipation (Paragraph 28) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and a change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidani (WO 2021/119804A) in view of Keller (Pat Num 2,003,297), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Javidani), further in view of Lafreniere et al (Pat Num 11,101,056, herein referred to as Lafreniere). Modified Javidani discloses a cable comprising a high strength high formable armor that exhibits improved formability and exhibiting improved rollability by achieving lower required torque at high temperature, while meeting or exceeding the ambient temperature strength and formability requirements for high strength applications (Page 2, lines 1-5), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
While modified Javidani discloses that the armor layer is interlocking (Fig 4), modified Javidani doesn’t necessarily disclose the interlocking armor layer being formed from a continuous strip, the strip having a top surface and a bottom surface and a first edge extending upwardly and a second edge extending downwardly; wherein the top surface of the first edge engages the bottom surface of the second edge to form the interlocking armor layer; and wherein respective planes formed by each of the first edge and second edge are substantially parallel to each other (claim 11), nor the step of forming the aluminum alloy strip into the interlocking armor layer comprises bending a first edge of the strip upwardly and bending a second edge of the strip downwardly (claim 16), nor the method, wherein bending the first edge of the strip upwardly and bending the second edge of the strip downwardly comprises bending the first edge and the second edge such that a first plane defined by the first edge and a second plane defined by the second edge are substantially parallel to each other (claim 17), nor the
step of forming the aluminum alloy strip into the interlocking armor layer comprises engaging the first edge with the second edge of the aluminum alloy strip to form the interlocking armor layer (claim 18), nor the method of forming an interlocking armor layer is continuous (claim 19).
Lafreniere teaches 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 claims 16-19, Lafreniere discloses an armored electrical cable (100, Fig 1) comprising a cable core (102 & 110) including one or more conductors (102) and a continuous interlocking armor layer (105) surrounding the cable core (102 & 110), wherein the interlocking armor layer (105) being formed from an aluminum alloy is known in the art (Col 1, lines 24-26), and wherein interlocking armor layer (105, Fig 4) comprising being formed from a continuous strip (located at 108), wherein the strip (located at 108) has a top surface (located at 122) and a bottom surface (located at 120) and a first edge (projected end of 120) extending upwardly (Fig 4) and a second edge (located at 125) extending downwardly (Fig 4), wherein the top surface (located at 122) of the first edge (projected end of 120) engages the bottom surface (located at 120) of the second edge (located at 125) to form the interlocking armor layer (Fig 4) and wherein respective planes formed by each of the first edge (projected end of 120) and second edge (located at 125) are substantially parallel to each other (Fig 4), wherein the step of forming the aluminum alloy strip (located at 108) into the interlocking armor layer (105) comprises bending a first edge (projected end of 120) of the strip (located at 108) upwardly (Fig 4) and bending a second edge (located at 125) of the strip (located at 108) downwardly (Fig 4), such that a first plane defined by the first edge (projected end of 120) and a second plane defined by the second edge (located at 125) are substantially parallel to each other (Fig 4).
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 modified Javidani to comprise the cable the interlocking armor layer being formed from a continuous strip, wherein the strip having a top surface and a bottom surface and a first edge extending upwardly and a second edge extending downwardly; wherein the top surface of the first edge engages the bottom surface of the second edge to form the interlocking armor layer; and wherein respective planes formed by each of the first edge and second edge are substantially parallel to each other, such that a first plane defined by the first edge and a second plane defined by the second edge are substantially parallel to each other configuration as taught by Lafreniere because Lafreniere teaches that such a configuration provides 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) and since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Keller fails to appreciate the unexpected nature of the results for aluminum alloys having amounts of magnesium and manganese within the presently claimed ranges such as a desirable balance of formability, ductility, and strength.
B) Keller fails to each one example of an aluminum alloy having an amount of manganese within the claimed range of 0.05-0.15% by weight.
C) The broad range of amounts provided for magnesium in Keller, which relates to alloys of varying properties does not invite optimization by one skilled in the art.
D) Javidani and Keller fail to teach the cable of independent claim 1 and the method of forming an interlocking armor layer for a cable of independent claim 13.
With respect to arguments A-C, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, it must be stated Javidani discloses all of the claimed inventions of claim 1 and 13, except the range of manganese being 0.05-0.15% weight. Specifically, Javidani discloses a cable (Fig 4) comprising a cable core including one or more conductors (located at 413, Fig 4, Page 4, lines 15-23) wherein an interlocking armor layer (411) surrounding the cable core (located at 413), wherein the interlocking armor layer (411) may be formed from an aluminum alloy (Page 5, lines 5-6), wherein the aluminum alloy comprising about 1.3% to about 1.7%, by weight of magnesium (i.e. 1.0-2.0, preferably 1.5, Page 5, lines 5-16), about 0.2% to about 0.95%, by weight of manganese (Page 5, lines 17-27) and the balance is aluminum (i.e. all of the elements equal about 2.65, therefore aluminum =97.35 %, see Pages 5-7). While it was the opinion of the examiner that since Javidani disclosed general ranges of manganese, specifically, 0.2% on the lower end, that discovering optimum ranges of the manganese in the amount of 0.05-0.15% would only involve routine skill in the art, since 0.5 of manganese is so small. Hypothetically speaking, if the claimed ranges of the manganese were rounded, the range would be 0.1-0.2% and therefore Javidani would have an overlapping ranges.
However, the examiner relied on Keller for its teaching of an aluminum alloy that attains high strength, high tensile strength, high yield strength, without recourse to special thermal treatment, not aging upon standing at ordinary or slightly elevated temperatures after having been quickly cooled from the annealing temperature, while obtaining a high strength in an alloy without suffering a loss in corrosion resistance (Col 2, lines 10-20) containing about about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight of manganese (i.e. 0.1-1.0%); and the balance is aluminum (Col 2, lines 10-13). Keller clearly teaches a majority of the claimed range of manganese and magnesium being incorporated in an aluminum alloy in order for the aluminum alloy to possess its lightness, yet have a strength approaching that of steel (Page 1, lnies 9-14). Incorporating magnesium and manganese in aluminum alloy was known and/or practiced in the century of 1930’s.
Secondly, clearly both Javidani and Keller both disclose that adding magnesium and manganese to the aluminum alloy results in a desired formability, ductility, and strength (see below) and therefore both Javidani and Keller respect the unexpected nature of adding magnesium and manganese to the aluminum alloy.
Javidani states on Page 2, lines 1-5 the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On Page 5, lines 5-6
PNG
media_image2.png
42
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On Page 5, lines 17-19
PNG
media_image3.png
60
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Keller states on Pages 1-2, lines 46-50 & 1-20, respectively
PNG
media_image4.png
62
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
222
232
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thirdly, the applicant also states that the specification shows comparative examples that utilizing manganese in the claimed amount and still yield samples that fail to pass the tensile test, bend test, and deemed to have unacceptable performance. The examiner respectfully submits that while the manganese is withing the claimed ranges, none of the Mg is within the claimed range. It is respectfully submitted, that Javidani clearly discloses Mg being within the claimed range and therefore again illustrates the importance of having Mg within the claimed limits of 1.4-1.6 % (i.e. 1.5, Page 5, lines 16).
Based on the disclosures of Javidani and Keller, 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 containing the interlocking aluminum alloy armor of Javidani to comprise the aluminum alloy containing about 0.05% to about 0.15%, by weight of manganese (i.e. 0.1-1.0%) to meet or exceed the UL 1 (2023) standard configuration as taught by Keller because Keller teaches that such a configuration provides an aluminum alloy that attains high strength, high tensile strength, high yield strength, without recourse to special thermal treatment, not aging upon standing at ordinary or slightly elevated temperatures after having been quickly cooled from the annealing temperature, while obtaining a high strength in an alloy without suffering a loss in corrosion resistance (Col 2, lines 10-20) 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 argument D, the examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Javidani with the teaching of Keller, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention. In light of this, it is respectfully submitted that the 35 35C 103(a) rejection of claims 1-9, 12-15, and 20 is proper and just.
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.
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
May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights