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.
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.
Claims 12, 14-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (9167736) in view of Daniel et al. (2012/0261158).
Shah et al. discloses an apparatus (Fig. 13) comprising a strength member (1300) including a core (composed of 1310 & 1330) formed of a composite material (col. 11 lines 17-39), and a plurality of elongated conductive elements (1320) disposed in the core, at least about 75% (i.e., 100%) of the plurality of elongate conductive elements disposed within less than 20% of a radial distance from an outer surface of the core to a central axis of the core; and an encapsulation layer (1340) disposed around the core (re-claim 12).
Shah et al. does not disclose the apparatus comprising a conductor layer disposed around the strength member (re-claim 12).
Daniel et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a conductor layer (422) disposed around a strength member (400).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to dispose a conductor layer as taught by Daniel et al. around the strength member of Shah et al. to form an electrical cable suitable for overhead power transmission.
Shah et al., as modified, discloses the plurality of elongate conductive elements including conductive carbon nanotubes (CNTs) (re-claims 14-15); the carbon nanotubes including single walled or multiwalled CNTs (col. 8 lines 64-66) (re-claim 16); the quantity of the elongate conductive elements in the composite core being equal to or less than 5% by weight (see claim 12 of Shah) (re-claims 17-18); re-claim 20, it is noted that since the modified apparatus of Shah 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 21, Shah et al. discloses conductive fillers or conductive additives included in the core and being in electrical communication with the elongate conductive elements (col. 11 lines 38-40, conductive elongate elements embedded in an aluminum matrix).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. in view of Daniel et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sundaram et al. (9969619).
Shah et al. and Daniel et al. disclose 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 Shah et al. to meet the required conductivity of the core.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 22, and 24-29 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights