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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 9, 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 Figure 3 lacks the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the insulation/filler 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 lines 1-2, the abstract recites the terms “….is provided.”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nichols (Pat Num 9,672,958). Nichols discloses a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Nichols discloses a cable device (100, Fig 5) comprising a conduit jacket (104), at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (104), wherein the conductors (108a, 108b) of the at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) within the conduit jacket (104) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 5), wherein the at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) is configured to transmit electrical power from a first device (electrical switches) to a second device (host bus adaptors, Col 2, lines 37-45) and a conductive filler (118, i.e. conductive plastic, Col 3, lines 55-63) inside the conduit jacket (104) occupying spaces within the conduit jacket (104) other than the plurality of internal spaces (Fig 5). With respect to claim 2, Nichols discloses that the pair of conductors (102a-102d) may be twisted (Col 3, lines 26-30) and bonded together (Col 3, lines 43-45, Fig 5) to exclude the conductive filler (118) from the plurality of internal spaces (i.e. when the adjacent conductors are twisted, they will remain in constant contact during the twisting along the length of the cable therefore no filler will be placed in the internal spaces that remain in constant contact). With respect to claim 3, Nichols discloses that the conductive filler (118) may be a conductive powder (Col 6, lines 9-23), which would inherently cause a ground fault upon a degradation of the conduit jacket (104, i.e. if the jacket 104 is damaged then the shield which is connected to ground will cause a ground fault). With respect to claim 4, Nichols discloses that the conductive powder may be a colored powder (i.e. copper is brown, silver, nickel, stainless steel, and aluminum are silver, Col 6, lines 17-19).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (Pat Num 9,672,958). Nichols discloses a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above.
While Nichols discloses the cable device comprising a conductive powder (Col 6, lines 9-23), Nichols doesn’t necessarily disclose the conductive powder being a powder mixture including approximately 80% of a conductive material and approximately 20% of a nonconductive material (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cable device of Nichols comprising the conductive powder to comprise the conductive powder being a powder mixture including approximately 80% of a conductive material and approximately 20% of a nonconductive material, 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) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (Pat Num 9,672,958) in view of Kaneda et al (Pat Num 10,217,547, herein referred to as Kaneda). Nichols discloses a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 and 2 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 6, Nichols discloses that the cable device (100, Fig 2) further comprises an individual insulation (left and right 112) surrounding each conductor (108a & 108b) of the at least one pair of conductors (102, Fig 2).
However, Nichols doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable device further comprising a conductive insulation layer between the individual insulation layer and the conduit jacket (claim 6), nor the conductive insulation layer is disposed between the conductive filler and the conduit jacket (claim 7), nor the conductive insulation layer surrounding the at least one pair of conductors, and wherein the conductive filler is disposed between the conductive insulation layer and the conduit jacket (claim 8), nor the conductive insulation layer being a foil wrap that surrounds the at least one pair of conductors (claim 9).
Kaneda teaches a cable device (Figs 1-6) having increased transmission power (Col 2, lines 20-23). Specifically, with respect to claims 6-7, Kaneda teaches a cable device (Fig 1A) comprising a conduit jacket (50), at least one pair of conductors (110R, 110B) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (50), wherein the conductors (111, 111) of the at least one pair of conductors (110R, 110B) within the conduit jacket (50) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 1B), and a conductive filler (114, Col 6, lines 55-56) inside the conduit jacket (50) occupying spaces within the conduit jacket (50), wherein the cable device (Fig 2A) further comprising a conductive insulation layer (115) between the individual insulation layer (113, 113) and the conduit jacket (50), wherein the conductive insulation layer (115) is disposed between the conductive filler (114) and the conduit jacket (50). With respect to claim 8, Kaneda discloses that the conductive insulation layer (115) surrounding the at least one pair of conductors (110R, 110B), and wherein the conductive filler (114) is disposed adjacent the conductive insulation layer (115) and the conduit jacket (50).
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 cable device of Nichols to comprise the cable device further comprising a conductive insulation layer configuration as taught by Kaneda because Kaneda teaches that such a configuration provides a cable device (Figs 1-6) having increased transmission power (Col 2, lines 20-23).
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to modify the cable device of Nichols to comprise the conductive filler being disposed between the conductive insulation layer and a jacket configuration, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
With respect to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cable device of modified Nichols to be made of a foil material, since it is well known in the art of cables that aluminum and/or copper foil layers are commonly utilized to shield interior conductors in order to provided them with protection from EMI and outside influences such as rain and/or water.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (Pat Num 9,672,958) in view of Morrison (Pat Num 2,261,703). Nichols discloses a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 10, Nichols discloses that the cable device (100, Fig 2) further comprising that the pair of conductors (102a-102d) may be twisted (Col 3, lines 26-30) and bonded together (Col 3, lines 43-45, Fig 5).
However, Nichols doesn’t necessarily disclose a wrapping layer that surrounds the at least one pair of conductors and is configured to seal each twist of the at least one pair of conductors to block the conductive filler from the plurality of internal spaces, wherein the conductive filler is outside of the wrapping layer (claim 10).
Morrison teaches a cable device (Fig 3) having uniform and increased cushioning action (Col 1, lines 45-50), while reducing static and providing a safe and continuous ground connection (Col 2, lines 20-25). Specifically, with respect to claim 10, Morrison teaches a cable device (Fig 3) comprising a conduit jacket (16), at least one pair of conductors (located 10, located 10) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (16), wherein the conductors (10, 10) of the at least one pair of conductors (located 10, 10) within the conduit jacket (16) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 3), and a conductive filler (14, Col 2, lines 43-55) inside the conduit jacket (16), wherein a wrapping layer (18) surrounds the at least one pair of conductors (located at 10, located at 10) and is configured to seal each twist of the at least one pair of conductors (located at 10, located at 10) to block the conductive filler (14) from the plurality of internal spaces (Fig 3), wherein the conductive filler (14) is outside of the wrapping layer (18).
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 cable device of Nichols to comprise the wrapping layer configuration as taught by Morrison because Morrison teaches that such a configuration provides a cable device (Fig 3) having uniform and increased cushioning action (Col 1, lines 45-50), while reducing static and providing a safe and continuous ground connection (Col 2, lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OMS (Pub Num 2019,0089074) in view of Nichols (Pat Num 9,672,958). OMS discloses an electrical protection system (Figs 1-8C) that safeguards against current leaks of the supply of high voltage and direct current electrical energy to a user equipment item (Paragraph 6), by indicating a loss of integrity of the protective sheath, to interrupt current in on or more of the conductors and thereby stop all or a part of the energy transmission (Paragraph 16), thereby damage through thermal effect (electrical arcs) cause on the surrounding materials (Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 11, OMS discloses a system (1, Figs 1-4) comprising a first device (2) and a second device (5a, 5b) configured to transmit and/or receive an electrical power (Paragraph 26) and a fault forcing cable (100) including a conduit jacket (4), at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (4, Fig 3), wherein conductors (30, 30) of the at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) within the conduit jacket (4) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 3), wherein the at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) is configured to transmit electrical power from a first device (2) to a second device (5a, 5b, Paragraph 26) and a conductive sheath (32) inside the conduit jacket (4). With respect to claim 12, OMS discloses that the system (1) further comprises a connector (21, 21, Fig 2) configured to attach to a termination point of the fault forcing cable (100) to seal the conductive sheath inside the fault forcing cable (100, Paragraph 28). With respect to claim 13, OMS discloses that the first device (2) and the second device (5a, 5b) are power transceivers configured to transmit and receive power (Paragraph 32) via the at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30). With respect to claim 14, OMS discloses that the at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) is configured to transmit the electrical power above 60 volts (i.e. +540 V, Paragraph 30). With respect to claim 18, OMS discloses a method comprising providing a fault forcing cable (100, Fig 2) having a conduit jacket (4), wherein at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (4), wherein conductors (30, 30) of the at least one pair of conductors (located at 30, located at 30) within the conduit jacket (4) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 3), and a conductive sheath (32) inside the conduit jacket (4) and transmitting electrical power, via the fault forcing cable (100), between a first device (2) to a second device (5a, 5b, Paragraph 26). With respect to claim 19, OMS disclose the method, further comprising causing a ground fault via the conductive sheath (32), upon a degradation of the conduit jacket (4, Paragraph 36-39). With respect to claim 20, OMS discloses a method, further comprising detecting a fault in the fault forcing cable (100) based on the conductive sheath (32) extending outside of the conduit jacket (4) upon a degradation of the conduit jacket (4, Paragraph 36-39).
OMS doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable comprising the conductive sheath being a conductive filler occupying spaces within the conduit jacket (4) other than the plurality of internal spaces (claim 11), nor the conductors of the at least one pair of conductors being bonded together at a plurality of connection points to exclude the conductive filler from the plurality of internal spaces (claim 15), nor the conductive filler is a conductive powder that causes a ground fault upon a degradation of the conduit jacket (claims 16 & 18-20), nor the conductive powder is a colored powder (claim 17).
Nichols teaches a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2). Specifically, with respect to claims 11 & 18, Nichols discloses a cable device (100, Fig 5) comprising a conduit jacket (104), at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) that is contained within and extends along a length of the conduit jacket (104), wherein the conductors (108a, 108b) of the at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) within the conduit jacket (104) form a plurality of internal spaces (Fig 5), wherein the at least one pair of conductors (102a-102d) is configured to transmit electrical power from a first device (electrical switches) to a second device (host bus adaptors, Col 2, lines 37-45) and a conductive filler (118, i.e. conductive plastic, Col 3, lines 55-63) inside the conduit jacket (104) occupying spaces within the conduit jacket (104) other than the plurality of internal spaces (Fig 5). With respect to claim 15, Nichols discloses that the pair of conductors (102a-102d) may be twisted (Col 3, lines 26-30) and bonded together (Col 3, lines 43-45, Fig 5) to exclude the conductive filler (118) from the plurality of internal spaces (i.e. when the adjacent conductors are twisted, they will remain in constant contact during the twisting along the length of the cable therefore no filler will be placed in the internal spaces that remain in constant contact). With respect to claims 16 & 19-20, Nichols discloses a method wherein the conductive filler (118) may be a conductive powder (Col 6, lines 9-23), which would inherently cause a ground fault upon a degradation of the conduit jacket (104, i.e. if the jacket 104 is damaged then the shield which is connected to ground will cause a ground fault). With respect to claim 17, Nichols discloses that the conductive powder may be a colored powder (i.e. copper is brown, silver, nickel, stainless steel, and aluminum are silver, Col 6, lines 17-19).
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 cable device of OMS to comprise the conductive filler configuration as taught by Nichols because Nichols teaches that such a cable device (Figs 1-5) that provides shielding around the signal conductors (Col 1, lines 5-7), thereby improving signal performance and simplifying manufacturing (Col 1, lines 55-56) and providing flexibility (Col 2, lines 1-2).
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 cable devices for systems having detecting/fault means.
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 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights