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 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 (See below for reference).
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.
The proper cross hatchings are disclosed below:
All insulative materials (i.e. insulation, jacket, etc.) shown be crosshatched as shown below:
All conductive materials (i.e. conductor, shielding, braids, etc.) should be cross-hatched as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
92
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
92
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patzak et al (Pat Num 2019/0140525, herein referred to as Patzak) in view of Eitel et al (Pub Num 2020/0075196, herein referred to as Eitel). Patzak discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is for transmitting electrical energy in a transportable system, such as an electrical motor (Paragraphs 1-2), while being constructed in a relatively space saving manner (Paragraph 25). With respect to claim 1, Patzak discloses a high-voltage cable (Fig 1) arranged for an internal flow of cooling fluid (Paragraph 91) comprising a hollow conductor (3) and arranged for an internal flow of cooling fluid (Paragraph 91), wherein an inner tube (1) made of aluminum is arranged inside the hollow conductor (3), which is also made of aluminum (Paragraph 93), wherein a first electrically insulating layer (2) is arranged between the inner tube (1) and the hollow conductor (3), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (2) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the inner tube (1) and the entire inner surface of the hollow conductor tube (3). With respect to claim 6, Patzak discloses that the cable (Fig 1) further comprises a second electrically insulating layer (4) arranged on the outside surface of the hollow conductor (3). With respect to claims 9-10, Patzak discloses that the cable (Fig 1) has a cross sectional area and the inner tube (3) has a diameter (Fig 1). With respect to claim 11, Patzak discloses that the cable (Fig 1) is suitable for installation in electrical vehicles (Paragraph 5). With respect to claim 12, Patzak discloses that the cable (Fig 1) is suitable for installation in charging station infrastructure (Paragraph 17).
While Patzak discloses that the hollow conductor (3) and the inner tube (1) are both made of aluminum (Paragraph 96), Patzak doesn’t disclose the hollow conductor and inner tube being made of extruded aluminum (claim 1).
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 1, 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 Patzak 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.
Patzak also 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 8-12mm (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 Patzak 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) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patzak (Pat Num 2019/0140525) in view of Eitel (Pub Num 2020/0075196), as applied to claim 1 above (herein referred to as modified Patzak), further in view of Radermacher et al (Pub Num 2012/0181059, herein referred to as Rademacher). Modified Patzak discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is for transmitting electrical energy in a transportable system, such as an electrical motor (Paragraphs 1-2), while being constructed in a relatively space saving manner (Paragraph 25) as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. With respect to claims 3-5, modified Patzak discloses that the first electrically insulating layer (2) is made of a non-conductive polymeric material having a dielectric strength (i.e.thermoplastic material, Paragraph 85).
However, modified Patzak doesn’t disclose the first electrically insulating layer being made of a material having a dielectric strength of 30 kV/mm or higher (claim 3), nor the first electrical insulating layer being a polyamide or polyethylene (claim 5).
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 3-5, 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), which inherently has a dielectric strength of 30 kV/mm or higher (i.e. applicant has stated that such material exhibit the stated characteristics).
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 modified Patzak 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) 7-8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patzak (Pat Num 2019/0140525) in view of Eitel (Pub Num 2020/0075196), as applied to claims 1 & 6 above (herein referred to as modified Patzak), further in view of Woody (Pat Num 5,591,937). Modified Patzak discloses an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) that is for transmitting electrical energy in a transportable system, such as an electrical motor (Paragraphs 1-2), while being constructed in a relatively space saving manner (Paragraph 25) as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 6 above. With respect to claims 3-4, modified Patzak discloses that the first electrically insulating layer (2) is made of a non-conductive polymeric material having a dielectric strength (i.e.thermoplastic material, Paragraph 85). With respect to claims 7 & 24, Patzak discloses that the conducting layers may be made of extruded aluminum (see Eitel above).
However, modified Patzak doesn’t disclose the cable further comprising a shield layer arranged outside the second insulating layer (claims 7-8 and 24).
Woody teaches an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) having a cooling system for cooling the transmission cable, while providing a branch detection system at a lower cost (Col 1, lines 35-41). Specifically, with respect to claim 7-8, Woody teaches a high-voltage cable (10, Fig 1) arranged for an internal flow of cooling fluid (via channel 31, Col 2, lines 61-67) comprising a hollow conductor (36), wherein an inner tube (34) is arranged inside the hollow conductor (36), wherein a first electrically insulating layer (35) is arranged between the inner tube (34) and the hollow conductor (36), wherein said first electrically insulating layer (35) is in direct contact with the entire outer surface of the inner tube (34) and the entire inner surface of the hollow conductor tube (36), wherein the cable (10) further comprises a second electrically insulating layer (37) arranged on the outside surface of the hollow conductor (36), and a shield layer (38) is arranged outside the second electrical insulating layer (37).
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 modified Patzak to comprise the shield configuration as taught by Woody because Woody teaches that such a configuration provides an improved high voltage cable (Figs 1-2) having a cooling system for cooling the transmission cable, while providing a branch detection system at a lower cost (Col 1, lines 35-41).
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 aluminum 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 of aluminum (39 & 46) and 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) The coaxial tubular wire braid (34) of Conrady is not an inner tube but rather an intermediate layer of wire braid that is interposed between the central tube (33) and the layers of dielectric material (35) and therefore cannot account for the claimed extruded inner tube in claim 1.
B) If the teachings of Eitel were applied to the cable of Conrady, the three layers of wire braid (34, 34, 36) would be replaced with extruded aluminum, and the inner tube (33) would cause a short circuit due to lack of an insulating layer between layers (33) and (34), thereby rendering the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
C) Conrady does not teach or suggest the material of the inner tube being aluminum but rather an insulating material and therefore it would be unreasonable to make the insulating material into a conductive material.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
With respect to arguments A-C, as the applicant has stated that the above arguments with respect to claim 1 also apply to claims 13-23, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, the examiner respectfully submits that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing a first extruded inner tube) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Genus, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the first metal tube is not required to be the most innermost and/or an inner tube as the applicant argues. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following:
… providing a first extruded metal tube (3) made of aluminum or aluminum alloy;- applying (102) a coating layer of an electrically insulating material onto an outer surface of the first extruded metal tube (3), to obtain a coated inner tube having a first electrically insulating layer (4); providing (111) a second extruded tube of aluminum or aluminum alloy to obtain a hollow conductor (2); inserting (103) the coated inner tube into the hollow conductor (2) and expanding (104) it until the first electrically insulating layer (4) is in contact with the inner surface of the hollow conductor (2).
Based on the above statements, it is respectfully submitted that the method as claimed by the claimed invention, would have been obvious in view of Conrady (Pat Num 5,670,860), Eitel (Pub Num 2020/0075196) and Nagahashi (Pub Num 2014/0374135), as disclosed above. In view of the previous statement, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection, as it pertains to claims 13-23 is proper and just.
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
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights