CABLE HAVING REDUCED LOSS

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Drawings The drawings were received on August 12, 2026. These drawings are not approved because Figure 1 still lacks the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the insulative and conductive materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required. 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 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 content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given. In lines 1 and 4-5, the abstract still refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maioli et al (Pub Num 2020/0090834) in view of AISI 1045 Standards Data Sheet of Medium Carbon Steel (American Iron and Steel Institute, herein referred to as AISI). Maioli discloses a cable (Figs 1-6) for electrical power transmission for submarine cable intended to be deployed underwater (Paragraph 31), while improving mechanical performance, reducing hysteresis and eddy current losses in the cable (Paragraph 33). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Maioli discloses a cable (10, Fig 1) comprising an outer armor (16) formed by cross-winding a plurality of metal wires (16a, Paragraph 131), wherein the metal wires (16a) of the outer armor (16) may be made of an carbon steel (Paragraphs 134), which has a permeability of more than 100 H/m (i.e. greater than 100 encompasses 50-200 H/m, Paragraph 59). With respect to claim 7, Maioli discloses that carbon steel may be galvanized steel (Paragraph 134). With respect to claim 8, Maioli discloses that the cable (10) comprises a conductor (12a), an insulating system (12b) comprising an inner semi-conducting layer surrounding the conductor (12a), an insulating layer surrounding the inner semi-conducting layer, and an outer semi-conducting layer surrounding the insulating layer (Paragraph 128), one or more cores (12, 12, 12) including a metal shielding layer (12c) surrounding the outer semi-conducting layer and a sheath layer (11) surrounding the metal shielding layer (12c, Paragraph 128), wherein a binder layer (15) entirely surrounding the one or more cores (12, 12, 12, Paragraph 130), an outer armor (16) surrounding the binder layer (15) and a jacket (not numbered) surrounding the outer armor (16, Fig 1). However, Maioli doesn’t necessarily disclose the austenitic stainless steel comprising an iron (Fe) alloy including carbon (C), silicon (Si) and manganese (Mn) as alloying elements and a balance of iron (Fe) and unavoidable impurities, wherein the permeability is of 50 AISI teaches a known and commercially available medium carbon steel, such as AISI 1045 (Page 1), wherein the medium carbon steel of AISI 1045 is commonly utilized as a wire because of its superior tensile strength, wear resistance, and ductility. Specifically, AISI teach that the medium carbon steel comprising an iron (Fe) alloy including carbon (C), silicon (Si) and manganese (Mn) as alloying elements and a balance of iron (Fe) and unavoidable impurities (Page 1), wherein the iron (Fe) alloy includes 0.4 -0.7 wt.% or more of carbon (C) relative to a total weight of the iron (Fe) alloy (i.e. 0.43-0.50, Page 1), 0.2 to 0.5 wt.% of silicon (Si) (i.e. 0.1-0.35 wt.% (Page 1), 0.3 to 0.6 wt.% of manganese (Mn) (i.e. 0.06 wt.%, Page 1), 0.05 wt.% or less of phosphorus (P) (i.e. less than 0.04 wt.%, Page 1), and 0.05 wt.% or less of sulfur (S), relative to a total weight of the iron (Fe) alloy (i.e. less than 0.04 wt.%, Page 1). 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 wire of armor being made of low carbon steel of Maioli to comprise an medium carbon steel comprising an iron alloy composite configuration as taught by AISI because AISI teaches that such a configuration is known and commercially available as AISI 1045 (Page 1), wherein such a medium carbon steel of AISI 1045 is commonly utilized as a wire because of its superior tensile strength, wear resistance, and ductility. 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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maioli et al (Pub Num 2020/0090834) in view of AISI 1045 Standards Data Sheet of Medium Carbon Steel (American Iron and Steel Institute, herein referred to as AISI), as applied to claims 1 & 8 above (herein referred to as modified Maioli), further in view of McCullough et al (Pub Num 2012/0168199, herein referred to as McCullough). Maioli discloses a cable (Figs 1-6) for electrical power transmission for submarine cable intended to be deployed underwater (Paragraph 31), while improving mechanical performance, reducing hysteresis and eddy current losses in the cable (Paragraph 33), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 8. However, modified Maioli doesn’t necessarily discloses the plurality of metal wires forming the one or more cores and the outer armor being each applied with a predetermined pitch and a predetermined direction of twist, and wherein the twisting direction of the cores and the twisting direction of the metal wires are identical (claim 9), nor the plurality of metal wires forming the one or more cores and the outer armor are each applied with a predetermined pitch and a predetermined direction of twist, and wherein the twisting direction of the cores and the twisting direction of the metal wires are different (claim 10). McCullough teaches a composite cable (Figs 1A-1C), that may be utilized as a submarine cable (Paragraph 46), while improving physical properties, such as tensile strength, elongation to failure, and improved reliability, as well as reducing the overall manufacturing cost of the submersible cable (Paragraph 5). Specifically, with respect to claims 9-10, McCollough teaches a cable (Fig 1B) comprising a plurality of metal wires (10) forming the core (11) and the outer armor (24) being formed of a plurality of metal wires (10), each applied with a predetermined pitch and a predetermined direction of twist (Paragraphs 64-65), and wherein the twisting direction of the core (11) and the twisting direction of the metal wires (10) may be identical (right hand lay) or may be different (left hand lay, Paragraphs 64-65). 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 of modified Maioli to comprise the core and outer armor configuration as taught by McCullough because McCullough teaches that such a configuration provides a composite cable (Figs 1A-1C), that may be utilized as a submarine cable (Paragraph 46), while improving physical properties, such as tensile strength, elongation to failure, and improved reliability, as well as reducing the overall manufacturing cost of the submersible cable (Paragraph 5). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 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, of which discloses submarine cables. Based on the newly submitted rejection, this action is a Non-Final Rejection. 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 April 28, 2025