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/EP2022/086698, being filed on December 19, 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. 18/712,332, filed on May 22, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 22, 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 2-3 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
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is objected to because it doesn’t contain the proper headings in the proper order as detailed above. The applicant should arrange and insert the proper headings as detailed above in order to provide the specification with clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 terms “comprising”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term 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 throughout the abstract, it contains run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences to provide the specification with proper language.
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 9-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the cross sectional area of the cable being 70-200 mm2”, and the claim also recites “the cross sectional area of the cable being 70-120 mm2”, which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the inner tube diameter being 6-12 mm”, and the claim also recites “the inner tube diameter being 6-10 mm”, or “the inner tube diameter being 8-12 mm”, both of which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Treatment of Claims
The examiner assumes that the applicant intends to claim the broader ranges in both claims 9 and 10.
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, 3, 4, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrady et al (Pat Num 5,670,860, herein referred to as Conrady). Conrady discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is not heavy or bulky, and does not kink or restrict coolant flow path (Col 1, lines 45-53), while maintaining relatively low temperatures during charging (Cols 1-2, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively) and being lightweight (Col 2, lines 40-41). With respect to claim 1, Conrady discloses a high-voltage cable (20, Fig 2), comprising a hollow conductor (2nd outer 34), wherein an inner tube (1st inner 34) made of metal (i.e. conductor) is arranged inside the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34), and a first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is arranged between the inner tube (1st inner 34) and the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the inner tube (1st inner 34) and the entire inner surface of the hollow conductor tube (2nd outer 34). With respect to claim 3, Conrady discloses that the first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is made of a material having a dielectric strength of 30 kV/mm or higher (i.e. 75KHz, Col 4, lines 1-2 & 19-23, respectively). With respect to claim 4, Conrady discloses that the first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is a non-conductive polymeric material (i.e. dielectric material, Col 4, lines 1-2). With respect to claim 6, Conrady discloses that the cable (20) further comprises a second electrically insulating layer (2nd outer 35) arranged on the outside surface of the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34). With respect to claim 11, Conrady discloses that the cable (20) is suitable for installation in electrical vehicles (Col 1, lines 5-10). With respect to claim 12, Conrady discloses that the cable (20) is suitable for installation in charging station infrastructure (Col 2, lines 35-37).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrady (Pat Num 5,670,860). Conrady discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is not heavy or bulky, and does not kink or restrict coolant flow path (Col 1, lines 45-53), while maintaining relatively low temperatures during charging (Cols 1-2, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively) and being lightweight (Col 2, lines 40-41), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
However, Conrady doesn’t necessarily disclose the cross- sectional area of the cable is 70-200 mm2, such as 70-120 mm2 (claim 9) nor the inner tube has a diameter of 6-12 mm, such as 6-10 mm or 8-12 mm (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the high voltage cable of Conrady to comprise the cross- sectional area of the cable is 70-200 mm2 and the inner tube has a diameter of 6-12 mm, 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) 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrady (Pat Num 5,670,860) in view of Eitel et al (Pub Num 2020/0075196, herein referred to as Eitel). Conrady discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is not heavy or bulky, and does not kink or restrict coolant flow path (Col 1, lines 45-53), while maintaining relatively low temperatures during charging (Cols 1-2, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively) and being lightweight (Col 2, lines 40-41), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 6 above.
However, Conrady doesn’t necessarily disclose the inner tube being made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (claim 2), nor the shield layer being made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (claim 7), nor the shield layer is an extruded tube (claim 8).
Eitel teaches an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-8) that is less complex in design and less costly to manufacture (Paragraph 34). Specifically, with respect to claim 2, 7, & 8, Eitel teaches a high-voltage cable (100), comprising a hollow conductor (102, Paragraph 39), a first electrically insulating layer (106) is arranged around the hollow conductor (102), and a shield layer (104) arranged outside the first insulating layer (106), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (106) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the hollow conductor tube (102), wherein the conductor (102) and the shield (104) may be made of aluminum (Paragraphs 39 & 46, respectively), and wherein the shield layer (104) may be an extruded tube (Paragraph 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 high voltage cable of Conrady to comprise the conductor and shield material configuration as taught by Eitel because Eitel teaches that such a configuration provides an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-8) that is less complex in design and less costly to manufacture (Paragraph 34) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrady (Pat Num 5,670,860) in view of Radermacher et al (Pub Num 2012/0181059, herein referred to as Rademacher). Conrady discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is not heavy or bulky, and does not kink or restrict coolant flow path (Col 1, lines 45-53), while maintaining relatively low temperatures during charging (Cols 1-2, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively) and being lightweight (Col 2, lines 40-41), as disclosed with respect to claims 1, 3, & 4 above.
However, Conrady doesn’t necessarily disclose the first electrically insulating layer (4) is a polyamide or a polyethylene.
Radermacher teaches a high voltage cable (Figs 1-6), for usage with an electrical vehicle (Paragraph 6), while minimizing the amount of EMI emitted from the cable (Paragraph 6) and allowing the cables to be easily routed (Paragraph 9). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Radermacher teaches a high-voltage cable (18), comprising an inner conductor (20), a first electrically insulating layer (30) is arranged around the inner conductor (20), and a shield layer (22) arranged outside the first insulating layer (30), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (30), may be made of polyamide (i.e. Teflon) or polyethylene (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 insulated wire of Conrady to comprise the insulation material configuration as taught by Rademacher because Rademacher teaches that such a configuration provides a high voltage cable (Figs 1-6), for usage with an electrical vehicle (Paragraph 6), while minimizing the amount of EMI emitted from the cable (Paragraph 6) and allowing the cables to be easily routed (Paragraph 9) and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrady (Pat Num 5,670,860) in view of Eitel (Pub Num 2020/0075196) and Nagahashi (Pub Num 2014/0374135). Conrady discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is not heavy or bulky, and does not kink or restrict coolant flow path (Col 1, lines 45-53), while maintaining relatively low temperatures during charging (Cols 1-2, lines 66-67 & 1-3, respectively) and being lightweight (Col 2, lines 40-41), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 13, Conrady discloses a method of manufacture of the cable (20) comprising the steps of providing a first metal tube (1st inner 34), applying a coating layer (1st inner 35) of an electrically insulating material onto an outer surface of the extruded metal tube (1st inner 34), to obtain a coated inner tube (Fig 2) having a first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 34), providing a second tube of electrically conducting material (2nd outer 34) to obtain a hollow conductor (Fig 2), wherein the coated inner tube (1st inner 34, 1st inner 35) is surrounded by the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34) wherein the first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is in contact with the inner surface of the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34, Fig 2). With respect to claim 14, Conrady discloses a method, wherein the first electrically insulating layer (1st inner 35) is applied to the first metal tube (1st inner 34). With respect to claim 17, Conrady discloses a method , further comprising applying a coating layer (2nd outer 35) of an electrically insulating material onto an outer surface of the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34), to obtain a coated hollow conductor (2nd outer 35, 2nd outer 34) having a second electrically insulating layer (2nd outer 35). With respect to claim 19, Conrady discloses a method, further comprising providing a shield layer (36) in the form of a third metal tube (Fig 2), optionally applying a coating layer (37) onto an outer surface of the third tube (36), to obtain a third coated tube (36, 37). With respect to claim 23, Conrady disclose the method further comprising bending the cable (20) into a desired shape (see 20 in Fig 1).
While Conrady discloses the first, second, and shielding metal layers being braided metallic layers (Col 3, lines 63-67), Conrady doesn’t necessarily disclose the first and second metal layers being extruded metal tubes (claim 13), nor the first electrically insulating layer is applied to the first extruded metal tube by co-extrusion or powder coating (claim 14), nor the second insulating layer being applied by co-extrusion (claim 18), nor the shield being formed as a third extruded metal tube (claim 19), nor the method, wherein the forming of the coated hollow conductor and the shield layer into an assembly is done by swaging, hammering, pressuring, roll forming or drawing (claim 21) nor the method wherein the forming of the coated hollow conductor and the shield layer into an assembly is done by swaging (claim 22).
Eitel teaches a method of forming an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-8) that is less complex in design and less costly to manufacture (Paragraph 34). Specifically, with respect to claims 13 & 19, Eitel teaches a method of forming a high-voltage cable (100), comprising providing a hollow conductor (102, Paragraph 39), providing a first electrically insulating layer (106) around the hollow conductor (102), and providing a shield layer (104) around the outside the first insulating layer (106), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (106) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the hollow conductor tube (102), wherein the conductor (102) and the shield (104) may be made by various methods such as an extruded tube (Paragraph 58). With respect to claim 14 & 18, Eitel teaches a method wherein the insulating layer (106) may be made by various methods, such as co-extrusion (i.e. the insulating layer is co-extruded by the same extruder that extrudes the conductor layers, Paragraph 59). With respect to claim 21-22, Eitel teaches that conductor (102) and the shield layer (104) may be formed by drawing, roll forming, and swagging (i.e. longitudinally pulling, Paragraph 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 high voltage cable of Conrady to comprise the conductor and shield materials being formed by the various method configuration as taught by Eitel because Eitel teaches that such a configuration provides an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-8) that is less complex in design and less costly to manufacture (Paragraph 34).
While Conrady disclose the coated inner tube being surrounded by the hollow conductor (2nd outer 34), Conrady also doesn’t necessarily disclose inserting the coated inner tube into the hollow conductor and expanding it until the first electrically insulating layer is in contact with the inner surface of the hollow conductor (claim 13), nor the expansion of the coated inner tube is a cold forming method (claim 15), nor the method, wherein the expansion of the coated inner tube is performed by drawing a plug through the inner tube, or by hydroforming (claim 16), nor inserting the coated hollow conductor into the third extruded metal tube, forming the coated hollow conductor and the shield layer into an assembly by reducing the cross-section diameter of the third extruded metal tube (claim 19), nor forming the coated hollow conductor and the shield into an assembly by reducing the cross-section diameter of the third extruded metal tube is performed prior to inserting the coated inner metal tube into the hollow conductor (claim 20).
Nagahashi teaches a method of forming a high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) having an easy structure (Paragraph 36), thereby waste of material can be reduced and the efficiency of the wiring operation can be improved (Paragraph 52). Specifically, with respect to claims 13, 15, 16, 19, & 20, Nagahashi teaches a method of forming a high-voltage cable (1), comprising providing a conductor (2), providing a first electrically insulating layer (3) around the conductor (2), and providing a shield layer (4) around the outside the first insulating layer (3), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (3) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the conductor (2), wherein the conductor (2), insulation layers (3 & 5), and the shield (4) may be made by the method of inserting the components (3-6) into each other and expanding it until the first electrically insulating layer (3) is in contact with the inner surface of the conductor (2, Paragraph 52), wherein the expansion of the components is a cold forming method and the expansion of the components (3-6) is performed by drawing a plug through the inner tube (Paragraph 38), wherein reducing the cross-section diameter of the metal tube (4) is performed prior to inserting the coated inner metal tube into the hollow conductor (Paragraph 38).
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 high voltage cable of Conrady to comprise the conductor and shield materials being formed by the various method configuration as taught by Nagahashi because Nagahashi teaches that such a configuration provides an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-8) that is less complex in design and less costly to manufacture (Paragraph 34).
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 discloses high voltage cables.
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 20, 2026