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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 9, 2026. These drawings are approved.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidlyarevich (Pat Num 10,147,521) in view of Grogl et al (Pub Num 2003/0121694, herein referred to as Grogl). Sidlyarevich teaches a composite cable (Figs 2 & 5) having reduced cross section thereby improving handling (Col 2, lines 9-10 & 15-16), while minimizing crosstalk between adjacent cables, as well as EMI (Col 2, lines 38-45), and minimizing voltage spikes and cable losses of the overall cable (Col 2, lines 48-54). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Sidlyarevich discloses a composite cable (22, Fig 2) comprising at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28), with the at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) insulated to a nominal voltage rating (Col 6, lines 1-13 & Col 7, lines 26-39), a circular dummy core (68) provided in a central position within the composite cable (22) to space the at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28, Col 6, lines 33-39), and a polymeric bedding material (not shown) provided about an outer side of the at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) and at least one data cable (62) and within an outer sheath (78) to sandwich the at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) and at least one data cable (62) relative to one another within the outer sheath (78, Col 7, lines 1-5, i.e. PP may be placed inside of 70 to maintain roundness of the overall cable). With respect to claim 2, Sidlyarevich teaches a composite cable (22, Figs 2 & 5) comprising at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28), wherein the at least one data cable (62) is super screened using the combination of one or more braided screens (86) and one or more metal foil screens (84) to minimize or avoid electronic interference (Col 7, lines 50-58). With respect to claims 6-9, Sidlyarevich discloses that the at least one data cable (62) is electrically shielded within the composite cable (22), with one or more metallic foil screens (84) and a braided screen (86). With respect to claim 12, Sidlyarevich discloses that the at least one data cable (62) and at least one power core (24, 26, 28) are twisted around an exterior surface of the dummy core (68,Col 6, lines 33-39). With respect to claim 15, Sidlyarevich discloses that a tape (70) is applied around the at least one data cable (62) and the at least one power core (24, 26, 28) one twisted together (Col 6, lines 61-67). With respect to claim 23, Sidlyarevich discloses a method of forming a composite cable (22, Fig 2) comprising the steps of providing pay-off equipment (i.e. cables are stored on a pay-off and then are combined to form a composite cable) to feed the data cable (22, Fig 2) at a low tension and twisting the at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) to form a circular cable (Fig 2, Cols 3 & 6, lines 28-43 & 33-39, respectively).
However, Sidlyarevich doesn’t necessarily disclose at least one data cable and at least one electric power core, with the at least one data cable and at least one electric power core insulated to the same nominal voltage rating (claim 1), nor the insulations withstanding high voltage testing of 2500V (claim 3), nor the data cable being rated for a voltage of 600v at frequency of up to 1600Hz (claim 5), nor the dummy core being more flexible than the at least one power core provided (claim 13).
Grogl teaches a flexible electrical composite cable (Fig 1), which enables power, control signals, and data to be transmitted (Paragraph 5), having improved shielding characteristics (Paragraph 16), improved flexibility and torsional characteristics (Paragraph 21). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Grogl teaches a composite cable (Fig 1) comprising at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1), with the at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1) insulated to the same nominal voltage rating (i.e. both are insulated with polypropylene foam covered with polypropylene (Paragraphs 29 & 31). With respect to claims 3 & 5, Grogl teaches that each core (2a & 3a) of the at least one data cable (2 & 3) is provided with a separate insulation (2f, 2g & 3f, 3g, respectively) and the cores (1a) of the at least one power core (1) is provided with a separate insulation (1e & 1f) having a dielectric strength to withstand high voltage testing (i.e. both are insulated with polypropylene foam covered with polypropylene which are capable of withstanding high voltage). With respect to claim 13, Grogl teaches that a dummy core (6) is provided in a central position within the composite cable (Fig 1), wherein the at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1) are twisted about an exterior surface of the dummy core (6, Paragraph 26), and wherein the dummy core (6) is more flexible than the at least one power core (1) provided (i.e. compressible material, Paragraph 23).
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 composite cable of Sidlyarevich to comprise the at least one data cable and at least one electric power core being insulated to the same nominal voltage rating configuration as taught by Grogl because Grogl teaches that such a configuration provides a composite cable (Figs 2 & 5) having reduced cross section thereby improving handling (Col 2, lines 9-10 & 15-16), while minimizing crosstalk between adjacent cables, as well as EMI (Col 2, lines 38-45), and minimizing voltage spikes and cable losses of the overall cable (Col 2, lines 48-54).
It also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the insulations of Sidlyarevich to withstand high voltage testing of 2500V and the data cable to be rated for a voltage of 600v at frequency of up to 1600Hz, since the applicant has not disclosed that such a modification solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that Sidlyarevich would perform equally well with the modification.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidlyarevich (Pat Num 10,147,521) in view of Grogl (Pub Num 2003/0121694), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Sidlyarevich), further in view of Hoefflin (Pub Num 2003/0121694). Modified Sidlyarevich teaches a composite cable (Figs 2 & 5) having reduced cross section thereby improving handling (Col 2, lines 9-10 & 15-16), while minimizing crosstalk between adjacent cables, as well as EMI (Col 2, lines 38-45), and minimizing voltage spikes and cable losses of the overall cable (Col 2, lines 48-54). Specifically, with respect to claim 16, Sidlyarevich discloses a composite cable (22, Fig 2) comprising at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28), with the at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) insulated to a nominal voltage rating (Col 6, lines 1-13 & Col 7, lines 26-39), a circular dummy core (68) provided in a central position within the composite cable (22) to space the at least one data cable (62) and at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28, Col 6, lines 33-39), and a polymeric bedding material (not shown) provided about an outer side of the at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) and at least one data cable (62) and within an outer sheath (78) to sandwich the at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) and at least one data cable (62) relative to one another within the outer sheath (78, Col 7, lines 1-5, i.e. PP may be placed inside of 70 to maintain roundness of the overall cable). With respect to claim 20, Sidlyarevich discloses that the cable (22) comprises a bedding material (not shown, Col 7, lines 1-5, i.e. PP may be placed inside of 70 to maintain roundness of the overall cable) about the at least one data cable (62) and the at least one electric power core (24, 26, 28) of the cable (22), once twisted together (Col 6, lines 61-67).
While Sidlyarevich disclose the cable (22) comprising a polymeric bedding (not shown), Sidlyarevich doesn’t necessarily disclose the polymeric bedding comprising a polymeric composition comprising polyvinylchloride with a K-value of between 35 and 80, di(2-propylheptyl)phthalate, at least one filler and a stabilizer (claim 16), nor the
the polyvinylchloride being approximately 70 (claim 18), nor the polyvinylchloride being provided in 200-400 parts, the di(2- propylheptyl)phthalate is provide in 200-400 parts, the at least one filler is provided in 200- 600 parts and the stabilizer being provided in 10-20 parts, on a weight basis (claim 19).
Hoefflin teaches a polymeric composition, that may be utilized as a cable coating (Paragraph 3), and reduces material consumption and costs, while maintaining impact properties and appearance (Paragraph 10), and being a lightweight foam when comparable to the solid articles (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 16, Hoefflin discloses that the polymeric composition comprising polyvinylchloride (i.e. PVC), which may have a K-value of between 35 and 80 (i.e. 65-75, Paragraph 21), a plasticizer (Paragraph 24) such as di(2-propylheptyl)phthalate (Paragraph 85), at least one filler (Paragraphs 44-46) and a stabilizer (Paragraphs 47-49). With respect to claim 18, Hoefflin discloses that the K-value of the polyvinylchloride (i.e. PVC) may be approximately 70 (i.e. 65-75, Paragraph 21). With respect to claim 19, Hoefflin discloses that the polymeric composition comprising polyvinylchloride (i.e. PVC), which may be present in the amount of 20-70% by weight (Paragraph 22), a plasticizer (Paragraph 24) such as di(2-propylheptyl)phthalate (Paragraph 85), which may be present in the amount of 15-45% by weight (Paragraph 26), at least one filler (Paragraphs 44-46), which may be present in the amount of 5-45% by weight (Paragraph 46) and a stabilizer (Paragraphs 47-49), which may be present in the amount of 0.5-5% by weight (Paragraph 49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the bedding material of the cable of Sidlyarevich to comprise the PVC bedding material configuration as taught by Hoefflin because Hoefflin teaches that of such a polymeric composition may be utilized as a cable coating (Paragraph 3), and reduces material consumption and costs, while maintaining impact properties and appearance (Paragraph 10), and being a lightweight foam when comparable to the solid articles (abstract) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such PVC, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 19, it also would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to modify the polymeric composition of modified Sidlyarevich to comprise the polyvinylchloride being provided in 200-400 parts, the di(2- propylheptyl) phthalate being provided in 200-400 parts, the at least one filler being provided in 200-600 parts and the stabilizer being provided in 10-20 parts, on a weight basis, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 15-16, 18-20, and 23, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights