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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/GB2022/052427, being filed on September 26, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/697,292, filed on March 29, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 29, 2024 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-5 lack the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductor and insulative materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 1, the abstract recites the term “comprising”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term “comprising” with the term –having--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is also objected to because it contains multiple paragraphs, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct the abstract to comprise a single paragraph.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 recites the limitation "the respective cores" in lines 2-3, which is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the previous mentioned “at least one electric power core” or introducing a new cores. If the applicant is referring to the previous mentioned term, then he/she should recite the term with consistency. If the applicant is referring to a new cores, then he/she should make the term more distinguishable.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a polymeric composition as claimed in claim 15" in lines 2-3, which is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “polymeric material” the applicant is referring to because previous lines of the dependent claims, and specifically claim 15, do not make mention of a “polymeric composition”. The applicant should clarify the claim to provide the claim with clarity.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the claim recites the term “minimised”, which is improperly spelled. The applicant should replace the term with –minimized—to provide the claim with proper spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the claim recites the term “stabiliser”, which is improperly spelled. The applicant should replace the term with –stabilizer—to provide the claim with proper spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Treatment of the Claims
With respect to claim 4, the examiner assumes the applicant is referring to cores of both the data and power cores. With respect to claim 21, the examiner assumes that the applicant intends to have the claim depend from claim 16 which recites “a polymeric composition”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grogl et al (Pub Num 2003/0121694, herein referred to as Grogl). Grogl discloses 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 discloses that the 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 claim 4, Grogl discloses the cable (Fig 1), wherein a polymeric bedding material (7) is provided about an outer side of the at least one power core (1) and at least one data cable (2 & 3) and sandwiches the at least one power core (1) and at least one data cables (2 & 3) relative to one another (Fig 1, Paragraph 23). With respect to claim 6, Grogl discloses that the 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) electrically shielded within the composite cable (Fig 1, Paragraph 31). With respect to claims 7 & 9, Grogl discloses the composite cable (Fig 1), wherein an electrical screen (2d) of data cable (2) comprising a spiral-wound (lapped) wire (Paragraph 31). With respect to claim 10, Grogl discloses a composite cable (Fig 1) comprises at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1), and a dummy core (6) within the composite cable (Fig 1) to space the data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1, Paragraph 26). With respect to claim 15, Grogl discloses a composite cable (Fig 1), wherein a tape (i.e. non-woven fabric, not shown) is applied around the at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1) once twisted together (Paragraph 23). With respect to claim 23, Grogl discloses a method of forming a composite cable (Fig 1) comprises at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1), wherein the method 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 (Fig 1) at a low tension and twisting the at least one data cable (Paragraph 26) and at least one electric power core (1) to form a circular cable (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoefflin et al (Pub Num 2003/0121694, herein referred to as Hoefflin). Hoefflin discloses 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).
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) 3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grogl (Pub Num 2003/0121694). Grogl discloses 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), as applied to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Grogl discloses 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).
However, Grogl doesn’t necessarily disclose that the insulations may withstand 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).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the insulations may 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 Grogl would perform equally well with the modification.
Claim(s) 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grogl (Pub Num 2003/0121694) in view of Sidlyarevich (Pat Num 10,147,521). Grogl discloses 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), as applied to claims 1 & 7 above.
While Grogl discloses the cable (Fig 1) comprises the data cable (2 & 3) being screened (Paragraph 31), Grogl doesn’t necessarily disclose the at least one data cable being super screened using one or more braided screens and one or more metal foil screens to minimize or avoid electronic interference (claim 2), nor the composite cable wherein the screen is a combination of foil and braided screen (claim 8).
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 claims 2 & 8, 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).
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 Grogl to comprise the dual shielding configuration as taught by Sidlyarevich because Sidlyarevich 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).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grogl (Pub Num 2003/0121694) in view of Grogl et al (Pub Num 2010/0276174, herein referred to as Grogl2). Grogl discloses 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), as applied to claims 1 & 10 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 11-13, Grogl discloses 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).
While Grogl discloses the dummy core (6) provided in the central position (Fig 1), Grogl doesn’t necessarily disclose the dummy core being circular (claim 11).
Grogl2 teaches a composite cable (Fig 1) comprising data and power conductors that are twisted around a central splice (i.e. dummy core), thereby resisting tensile forces and allowing the cable to be bendable (Paragraph 11), while also protecting the data cables from EMI (Paragraph 12). Specifically, with respect to claim 11, Grogl2 teaches a composite cable (Fig 1) comprising at least one data cable (DP & DP) and at least one electric power core (VA & VA), wherein the at least one data cable (DP & DP) and the at least one electric power core (VA & VA) are twisted around a dummy core (8), which is circular (Fig 1, Paragraph 19).
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 Grogl to comprise the dummy core to have a circular configuration as taught by Grogl2 because Grogl2 teaches that such a configuration provides composite cable (Fig 1) comprising data and power conductors that are twisted around a central splice (i.e. dummy core), thereby resisting tensile forces and allowing the cable to be bendable (Paragraph 11), while also protecting the data cables from EMI (Paragraph 12) 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.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefflin (Pub Num 2003/0121694). Hoefflin discloses 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), as disclosed above with respect to claim 16. Specifically, 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).
However, Hoefflin doesn’t necessarily disclose the polymeric composition comprising the polyvinylchloride is 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 is provided in 10-20 parts, on a weight basis (claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the polymeric composition of Hoefflin to comprise the polymeric composition comprising the polyvinylchloride is 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 is 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.
Claim(s) 20 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoefflin (Pub Num 2003/0121694) in view of Grogl (Pub Num 2003/0121694). Hoefflin discloses 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), as disclosed above with respect to claim 16. Specifically, with respect to claims 20-21, 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), wherein the polymeric composition may be utilized as a cable coating (i.e. bedding material, Paragraph 3).
However, Hoefflin doesn’t necessarily disclose the bedding material being provide about the at least one data cable and at least one electrical power core of a composite cable having the same nominal voltage rating (claim 20).
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 claims 20-21, 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), wherein a polymeric bedding material (7) is provided about an outer side of the at least one power core (1) and at least one data cable (2 & 3) and sandwiches the at least one power core (1) and at least one data cables (2 & 3) relative to one another (Fig 1, Paragraph 23), and wherein a tape (i.e. non-woven fabric, not shown) is applied around the at least one data cable (2 & 3) and at least one electric power core (1) once twisted together (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 polymeric composition that may be utilized as a bedding material surrounding a cable (i.e. cable cover) of Hoefflin to be substituted as a bedding material in Grogl because Grogl teaches that such polymeric materials are commonly utilized in composite cables as bedding layers surrounding the data and power cables to enables power, control signals, and data to be transmitted (Paragraph 5), while having improved shielding characteristics (Paragraph 16), and improved flexibility and torsional characteristics (Paragraph 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various composite cables comprising data and power conductors.
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
January 6, 2026