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 the drawings lack the required clarity of solid black lines (MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.84 Standards for Drawings). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 2, the intended meaning of the phrase “the increase in the temperature increase,” is unclear. No further clarification regarding the intended meaning is present in the specification. Due to the frequent and interchangeable usage of the similar phrases “the increase in temperature” and “the temperature increase,” the phrase “the increase in the temperature increase” is being interpreted as referring to the same concept. It is additionally interpreted that the phrase “the increase in the temperature increase” was intended to be a continued discussion of an increase in temperature of the associated portion of the body in Claim 1, rather than an introduction of an entirely new concept. For the sake of clarity, it is suggested that a singular term is used throughout, such as “temperature increase” or the like.
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 11, 14, and 17 are 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.
Regarding Claim 11: The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The lack of clarity regarding the claimed activation temperature is not resolved by the additional details in the specification. The term “about” being identified in the specification as referring to a variation of 15% or less, 10% or less, 5% or less, 1% or less, or .1% or less. does not resolve the issue as the differing potential interpretations introduce further uncertainty into the activation temperature range that is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has chosen to interpret “about” as a variation of .1%.
Regarding Claim 14: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “irreversible” in Claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “resettable by exposing the body to a reduced temperature for a period of time,” while the accepted meaning is “not possible to change; impossible to return to a previous condition,” (Cambridge Dictionary). Additionally, and with respect to Applicant's interpretation of "irreversible", no special definition is found in the specification, and Examiner has taken the broadest reasonable interpretation, pursuant to In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for depending on Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17: 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). For examination purposes the limitations will be considered as examples and not affirmative limitations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai (US 20200381142 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Tsai teaches a thermochromic cable wrap comprising: a body (Thermochromic Strip 52, including Transparent-Film Strip 520 and Thermochromic Coating 521 (Figures 5a, 5b)) defining a first surface (Bottom Surface of the Thermochromic Strip (Paragraph 28))(See also Annotated Figure 5a.) and an opposite second surface (The surface of thermochromic coating 521 that contacts the transparent film strip 520 (Figure 5a))(See also Annotated Figure 5a.), wherein the first surface defines an opening extending between a first end and an opposite second end (Figures 5a, 5b), the body comprising a thermochromic pigment configured to produce a change in color along at least a portion of the body in response to an increase in the temperature of the associated portion of the body (Paragraph 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5a
Regarding Claim 2: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the body is configured to wrap around a cable (The thermochromic strip is found and fixed on the peripheral surface of the insulated core (Paragraph 27)(Figures 5a, 5b), wherein the first surface of the body contacts the cable (Bottom Side, Paragraph 27), wherein the color change is in response to the increase in the temperature increase at an area along the cable (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the body defines a trajectory between the first end and the second end selected from the group consisting of a helical trajectory, a split loom trajectory, a wave trajectory, a woven/braided trajectory, a ribbed trajectory, a cutout trajectory, and combinations thereof (Coiling or weaving (Paragraph 27)).
Regarding Claim 4: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the body defines an initial cross-sectional shape that is selected from the group consisting of a circle, an oval, a square, a rectangle, a triangle, a diamond, and combinations thereof (Circular Cross Section (Figures 5a,5b)).
Regarding Claim 5: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the color change is a gradient color change (Na2O2, white changes gradually to dark yellow (Table 1)).
Regarding Claim 6: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the color change is a solid color change (A temperature change causes images to appear. It must be a solid color change, or the images would not appear correctly (Figures 1a, 1b)).
Regarding Claim 7: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1, wherein the length of the body measured from the first end to the second end is adjustable to a desired cable length (The thermochromic strip is wound around the insulated core and isn’t constrained to a specific length (Paragraph 45, (Step 401, Figure 4)).
Regarding Claim 8: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 2, wherein the body extends an entire length of the cable (The thermochromic wrap is manufactured as a layer of the cable (insulated wire 5 (Paragraph 45 and 46)(Figure 5a)).
Regarding Claim 9: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 2, wherein the body wraps fully around the circumference of the cable (Paragraph 45)(Figure 5a, 5b).
Regarding Claim 11: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to claim 1, wherein the temperature increase is above an activation temperature, wherein the activation temperature is between about 45 degrees F and about 170 degrees F (Thermochromic Transition Temperature (Table 1)).
Regarding Claim 13: Tsai teaches a thermochromic cable wrap comprising: a body (Thermochromic Strip 52, including Transparent-Film Strip 520 and Thermochromic Coating 521 (Figures 5a, 5b)) defining a first surface (Bottom Surface of the Thermochromic Strip (Paragraph 28))(See also Annotated Figure 5a) and an opposite second surface (The surface of thermochromic coating 521 that contacts the transparent film strip 520 (Figure 5a))(See also Annotated Figure 5a), wherein the first surface defines an opening extending between a first end and an opposite second end (Figures 5a, 5b), the body comprising a thermochromic pigment configured to produce an irreversible change in color along at least a portion of the body in response to an increase in the temperature of the associated portion of the body (Paragraph 7) (Paragraph 15).
Regarding Claim 17: Tsai teaches a method of use of a thermochromic cable wrap (Thermochromic Strip (Abstract)(Figures 5a, 5b)), wherein the thermochromic cable wrap defines a first surface (Bottom Surface of the Thermochromic Strip (Paragraph 28)) and an opposite second surface (The surface of thermochromic coating 521 that contacts the transparent film strip 520 (Figure 5a)), wherein the first surface defines an opening extending between a first end and an opposite second end (Figures 5a, 5b), the body comprising a thermochromic pigment (Paragraph 15) configured to produce a change in color along at least a portion of the second surface in response to an increase in the temperature of the associated portion of the second surface (The surface of thermochromic coating 521 that contacts the transparent film strip 520 (Figure 5a))(Paragraph 27), the method comprising: positioning the thermochromic cable wrap along an electronic component, such as a cable such that the first surface is in contact with the cable (Paragraph 27) (Step 410, Figure 4); producing the color change along a portion of the second surface of the thermochromic cable wrap in response to the increase in the temperature at a position along the cable; displaying the color change along the second surface of the thermochromic cable wrap (The surface of thermochromic coating 521 that contacts the transparent film strip 520 (Figure 5a))(Paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 18: Tsai teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the color change is in response to the increase in the temperature above an activation temperature, wherein the activation temperature is between about 45 degrees F to about 170 degrees F (Thermochromic Transition Temperature (Table 1)).
Regarding Claim 20: Tsai teaches the method according to Claim 17, wherein the color change of the thermochromic cable is irreversible (Paragraph 7)(Paragraph 15)
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20200381142 A1) in view of Hulsey (US 20080121171 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 2. Tsai teaches that the body wraps around a singular cable but does not specifically teach that the body wraps around a plurality of cables. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hulsey teaches that a body wraps around a plurality of cables (Twisted Cable Pair 31 (Figure 2)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thermochromic cable wrap of Tsai with the ability to contain multiple cables as demonstrated in Hulsey for the purpose of multiple cables being surrounded and protected by the wrap (Hulsey, Paragraph 40).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20200381142 A1) in view of Barker (GB 2307298 A).
Regarding Claim 12: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 1. Tsai does not specifically teach that the body is manufactured from a plastic resin. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Barker teaches a body is manufactured from a plastic resin (C4, L17-21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Tsai with the plastic resin of Barker because plastic resin is known to be robust, easily modulable, and safe (Barker, C4, L13-17.)
Claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20200381142 A1) in view of Faustine et al (FR 2923906 A1).
Regarding Claim 14: Tsai teaches the thermochromic cable wrap according to Claim 13. Tsai does not specifically teach that irreversible color change is resettable by exposing the body to a reduced temperature for a period of time. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Faustine et al teaches that an irreversible color change is resettable by exposing (Return to initial color following user intervention (Description, Page 9. Paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thermochromic cable wrap of Tsai with the resettable color change of Faustine for the purpose of returning the device to the initial color so that the device can be used repeatedly to indicate deviations from a desired temperature range (Description, Page 3. Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 15: Tsai in view of Faustine teaches the device of Claim 14. Faustine additionally teaches that (The temperature of the freezing chamber decreases until it reaches a predetermined temperature threshold Tmit, which can be around -21 C (Description, Page 8. Paragraph 3)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thermochromic cable wrap of Tsai with the reduced temperature of at least 32 degrees F of Faustine for the purpose of using a freezing chamber to reset the color change (Description, Page 8, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 16: Tsai in view of Faustine teaches the device of Claim 14. Faustine further teaches a time period of at least 30 minutes (The scale of Figures 2 and 3 can be determined based on the given information that D2 can be on the order of 4 hours. The user intervention is represented by reference I and is determined to also be on the scale of multiple hours. (Description, Page 9. Paragraph 2.) (Figures 2 and 3)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thermochromic cable wrap of Tsai with the time period that is at least 30 minutes of Faustine because a full return to the initial color can only occur after a certain duration (Description, Page 8. Paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 19: Tsai teaches the method according to Claim 17. Tsai additionally teaches the thermochromic cable wrap (Thermochromic Strip 52, including Transparent-Film Strip 520 and Thermochromic Coating 521 (Figures 5a, 5b)). Tsai does not specifically teach that the thermochromic cable wrap is resettable after the color change by exposing the body to a reduced temperature for a period of time. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Faustine teaches that a thermochromic device is resettable after the color change by exposing the body to a reduced temperature for a period of time (Return to initial color following user intervention (Description, Page 9. Paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the thermochromic cable wrap of Tsai with the resettable color change of Faustine for the purpose of returning the device to the initial color so that the device can be used repeatedly to indicate deviations from a desired temperature range (Description, Page 3. Paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA C. BAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-0781. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8/8:30 - 5/5:30, Friday 8:30 - 5:00 or Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Emma C Bair/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
