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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, lines 1-2, “the conductive fibers”; “the conductive filaments”; and “the conductive tows” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7, line 1, --the-- should be inserted before “conductive”
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “the conductive fibers”; “the conductive filaments”; and “the conductive tows” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 5 and 16 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daniel et al. (2012/0261158).
Daniel et al. (Figs 8-9) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a strength member, including: a core (514) formed of a composite material, and at least one of a plurality of conductive elements (526, [0031], metal fibers or carbon fibers) included in the composite material causing the core to be electrically conductive; and a conductor layer (422) disposed around the strength member (re-claim 1). Daniel et al. also discloses that the strength member further comprises an encapsulation layer (519) disposed around the core (re-claim 2); the plurality of conductive elements include at least one of conductive fibers, conductive filaments, or conductive tows (re-claim 3); the conductive fibers, the conductive filaments, the conductive tows include at least one of conductive carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or graphene ([0031]) (re-claim 4); the conductor layer (422) includes a plurality of conductive strands disposed around the strength member (re-claim 11). It is noted that since the core of Daniel et al. includes at least one of the plurality of conductive elements as claimed, the ratio of a resistivity of the core to a resistivity of a core that does not include the plurality of conductive element would be equal to or less than 1:10 (re-claim 9).
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 22, 24-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiyama et al. (2012/0267141).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamiyama et al. (Fig. 1a) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a strength member, including: a core (material wire at the center) formed of a composite material, and at least one of a plurality of conductive elements (carbon nanotubes) included in the composite material causing the core to be electrically conductive; and a conductor layer disposed around the strength member (re-claim 1). Kamiyama et al. also discloses that the conductive fibers include conductive carbon nanotubes (re-claim 4); the conductive carbon nanotubes includes double walled carbon nanotubes ([0120]) (re-claim 5); the quantity of the conductive elements in the composite core is equal to or less than 5% by weight (see abstract) (re-claims 6-7); the conductor layer includes a plurality of conductive strands disposed around the strength member (re-claim 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
271
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 22, Kamiyama et al. discloses an electrical conductor comprising a strength member comprising an at least partially electrically conductive core including a bulk matrix formed of a composite material, and a plurality of elongated conductive elements (carbon nanotubes) embedded in the bulk matrix, and an encapsulating layer disposed around the core, the encapsulating layer formed of an electrically conductive material; and a conductor layer disposed around the strength member (see the annotated Figure above). It is noted that since the at least partially electrically conductive core of Kamiyama et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it is causing the electrical conductor to have a resistance of equal to or less than 0.6 ohm/km (re-claim 22).
Kamiyama et al. also discloses that the plurality of conductive elements include conductive fibers or conductive filaments (re-claim 24); the quantity of the conductive elements in the composite core is equal to or less than 5% by weight (see abstract) (re-claims 25-26); and the strength member further comprises conductive additives (aluminum) included in the core and being in electrical communication with the plurality of conductive elements (re-claim 29).
Claims 1, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (2009/0255706).
Jiang et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a strength member, including: a core (120) formed of a composite material (Fig. 2), and at least one of a plurality of conductive elements (102) included in the composite material causing the core to be electrically conductive; and a conductor layer (140) disposed around the strength member (re-claim 1). Jiang et al. also discloses that the plurality of conductive elements are distributed in the core such that a higher concentration of the conductive elements are disposed proximate to an outer surface of the core relative to a concentration of the conductive element proximate to the central axis of the core (Fig. 3, more elements being disposed near the peripheral surface than the central axis) (re-claim 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
453
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 12, Jiang et al. discloses a strength member including a core (120) formed of a composite material (Fig. 2), and a plurality of elongate conductive elements (102) disposed in the core such that greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to a central axis of the core; and a conductor layer (140) disposed around the core. Jiang et al. also discloses that the strength member further comprises an encapsulation layer (130) disposed around the core (re-claim 13); the plurality of conductive elements include conductive fibers, conductive filaments, or conductive tows (re-claim 14); the conductive fibers, conductive filaments, or conductive tows include conductive carbon nanotubes (re-claim 15).
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (2012/0090892).
Meyer et al. discloses an electrical conductor comprising a strength member comprising an at least partially electrically conductive core (1) including a bulk matrix formed of a composite material, and a plurality of elongated conductive elements (carbon fibers, [0071]) embedded in the bulk matrix, and an encapsulating layer (2) disposed around the core, the encapsulating layer formed of an electrically conductive material (metal); and a conductor layer (3) disposed around the strength member. It is noted that since the at least partially electrically conductive core of Meyer et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it is causing the electrical conductor to have a resistance of equal to or less than 0.6 ohm/km (re-claim 22); and the ratio of a resistivity of the core to a resistivity of a core that does not include the plurality of conductive element would be equal to or less than 1:10 (re-claim 28).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. in view of Sundaram et al. (9969619).
Daniel et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the conductive elements (526) having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg. Sundaram et al. discloses a composite material comprising a plurality of conductive elements which have a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg (Table 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use conductive elements having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg, as taught by Sundaram et al., for the conductive elements of Daniel et al. to meet the required conductivity of the core.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guery et al. (2007/0193767) in view of Jiang et al.
Guery et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a strength member including a core (1) formed of a composite material, and a plurality of conductive elements ([0029]) disposed in the core; and a conductor layer (3) disposed around the core (re-claim 12).
Guery et al. does not disclose greater than 50% of the conductive elements being disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core (re-claim 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
453
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jiang et al. discloses a composite core including a plurality of conductive elements, wherein greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the composite core of Guery et al. such that greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core, as taught by Jiang et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting apparatus. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Re-claim 20, it is noted that since the modified core of Guery et al. includes at least one of the plurality of conductive elements as claimed, the ratio of a resistivity of the core to a resistivity of a core that does not include the plurality of conductive element would be equal to or less than 1:10.
Claims 12, 14-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama et al. in view of Jiang et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 12, Kamiyama et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a strength member including a core formed of a composite material, and a plurality of elongate conductive elements (carbon nanotubes) disposed in the core; and a conductor layer disposed around the core. Kamiyama et al. does not disclose greater than 50% of the conductive elements being disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jiang et al. discloses a composite core including a plurality of conductive elements, wherein greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the composite core of Kamiyama et al. such that greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core, as taught by Jiang et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting apparatus. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Re-claims 14-18, Kamiyama et al. discloses the conductive elements including conductive carbon nanotubes which are double-wall carbon nanotubes ([0120]), wherein the quantity of conductive elements in the composite core is equal to or less 5% by weight (see abstract).
Re-claim 21, Kamiyama et al. discloses the strength member further comprising conductive additive (aluminum) included in the core and being in electrical communication with the conductive elements.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. in view of Sundaram et al.
Jiang et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the conductive elements having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg. Sundaram et al. discloses a composite material comprising a plurality of conductive elements which have a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg (Table 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use conductive elements having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg, as taught by Sundaram et al., for the conductive elements of Jiang et al. to meet the required conductivity of the core.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. in view of Jiang et al.
Meyer et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for greater than 50% of the conductive elements being disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core. Jiang et al. discloses a composite core including a plurality of conductive elements, wherein greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the composite core of Meyer et al. such that greater than 50% of the conductive elements are disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to the central axis of the core, as taught by Jiang et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting apparatus. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. in view of Sundaram et al.
Meyer et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the conductive elements having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg. Sundaram et al. discloses a composite material comprising a plurality of conductive elements which have a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg (Table 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use conductive elements having a specific conductivity of about 500 Sm2/kg to about 10,000 Sm2/kg, as taught by Sundaram et al., for the conductive elements of Meyer et al. to meet the required conductivity of the core.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841