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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/02/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1, 5-19 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 claims 1, 7-11, 13, 16, the term “substantially” is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 13, the term “sufficient strength” is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 15, the term “desired shape” is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 16, the terms “desired length” is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 19, the term “optionally” is ambiguous.
It is unclear what is specifically being claimed. For example, it is unclear what qualifies as “substantially rectangular”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris, Sr. (Pub. No. US 2021/0074450).
As to claim 1, Harris discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) 100 (figs. 9A-9E), comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) 108 configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (figs. 9A-9E), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles (¶0052)) distributed within the pliable polymer binder to produce multiple magnetic poles (¶0027);
the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section (¶0029) defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces wherein the substantially rectangular cross-section is substantially symmetric about an x-axis and a y-axis, and longer in the x-axis than it is in the y-axis wherein the multiple magnetic poles are substantially parallel with the y-axis and arranged in an alternating configuration (¶0030); and one or more electrically conductive wires 116.
As to claim 5, Harris discloses that the multiple magnetic poles facilitate y-axis alignment when the FMC is in the folded state (figs. 9A-9E).
As to claim 6, Harris discloses that the FMC comprises one or more stiff sections and one or more flexible sections; the flexible sections provide predefined hinge points; and the stiff sections define a distance between the predefined hinge points (figs. 9A-9E discloses stiff points located at magnets 108 and flexible sections between).
As to claim 11, Harris discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) 100 (figs. 9A-9E), comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) 108 configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (figs. 9A-9E), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles distributed within the pliable polymer binder (¶0052);
the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (¶0029);
one or more electrically conductive wires 110,
wherein one or more of the electrically conductive wires are embedded in the foldable EFMC (figs. 15-17).
As to claim 13, Harris discloses a method of manufacturing a foldable magnetic cable (FMC) 100 (figs. 9A-9E), the method comprising:
forming a foldable elongated flexible magnetic component (EFMC) 108 having a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (¶0029); and
exposing the foldable EFMC to a magnetic field of sufficient strength to create a persistent magnetic field wherein the persistent magnetic field is oriented wherein at least some portion of the foldable EFMC is magnetically attracted to at least some other portion of the foldable EFMC when the FMC cable is in a folded state (figs. 9A-9E; ¶0052); and incorporating one or more electrically conductive wires 110 within or adjacent to the foldable EFMC.
As to claim 14, Harris discloses exposing the foldable EFMC to a magnetic field in the folded state to create alternating sections of polarity (figs. 3-8; 9A-9E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulas (Pub. No. US 2015/0187468) in view of Bevirt et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0314515) and Kawai (Pub. No. US 2026/0120916).
As to claim 8, Kulas discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) (fig. 11), comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (fig. 11; ¶0041), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles distributed within the pliable polymer binder (¶0042);
one or more electrically conductive wires (figs. 3, 10, 11);
wherein:the FMC comprises one or more stiff sections 400, 402 and one or more flexible sections 404;
the flexible sections provide predefined hinge points (fig. 11); and
the stiff sections define a distance between the predefined hinge points (fig. 11).
However, Kulas does not disclose that the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces; and one or more of the flexible sections are perforated, slit, or punched to create flexibility.
Bevirt discloses a folding cord having a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (fig. 1A).
Kawai discloses one or more flexible sections having slits 3 (fig. 1).
Kulas discloses that the stiff sections can be any shape (¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foldable EFMC have a substantially rectangular cross-section as similarly taught by Bevirt since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more flexible sections be perforated, slit, or punched as similarly taught by Kawai in order to increase flexibility.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, Sr. (Pub. No. US 2021/0074450).
As to claim 9, Harris discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) 100 (figs. 9A-9E) comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) 108 configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (9A-9E), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles distributed within the pliable polymer binder (¶0052);
the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (¶0029);
one or more electrically conductive wires 110; and
an exterior sheath comprising a stretchable material (figs. 16-17; ¶0055).
However, Harris does not disclose that the sheath is a stretchable yarn material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stretchable material of Harris be made of a yarn since it has been held to be within the 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, Sr. (Pub. No. US 2021/0074450) in view of Kincaid (Patent No. US 4,406,914).
As to claim 10, Harris discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) 100 (figs. 9A-9E) comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) 108 configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (9A-9E), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles distributed within the pliable polymer binder (¶0052);
the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (¶0029);
one or more electrically conductive wires 110.
However, Harris does not disclose a lubricant between one or more internal mating surfaces.
Kincaid discloses using a lubricant on an internal surface of a cable before folding (col. 6 lines 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the internal mating surfaces of Harris have lubricant as similarly taught by Kincaid in order to reduce friction between the internal layers.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris, Sr. (Pub. No. US 2021/0074450) in view of Kulas (Pub. No. US 2015/0187468).
As to claim 15, Harris discloses installing a connector 102, 104 (fig. 1) at each end of the foldable EFMC.
However, Harris does not disclose a heat treatment to impart a desired shape to the cable and installing a connector at each end of the foldable EFMC.
Kulas discloses using a heat gun to provide a shape (¶0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shape of Harris be imparted by a heat treatment as similarly taught by Kulas in order to bias the cable with a predetermined shape.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulas (Pub. No. US 2015/0187468) in view of Bevirt et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0314515).
As to claim 1, Kulas discloses a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) (fig. 11), comprising:
a foldable elongated flexible magnetized component (EFMC) (fig. 11; ¶0041-0042) configured to produce a persistent magnetic field wherein at least some portions of the foldable EFMC are magnetically attracted to at least some other portions of the foldable EFMC when the foldable EFMC is in a folded state (fig. 11), wherein:
the foldable EFMC includes a pliable polymer binder and magnetic particles (¶0042) distributed within the pliable polymer binder to produce multiple magnetic poles (¶0041-0042); and one or more electrically conductive wires 22.
However, Kulas does not explicitly disclose the foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces wherein the substantially rectangular cross-section is substantially symmetric about an x-axis and a y-axis, and longer in the x-axis than it is in the y-axis wherein the multiple magnetic poles are substantially parallel with the y-axis and arranged in an alternating configuration.
Bevirt discloses a foldable EFMC has a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces wherein the substantially rectangular cross-section is substantially symmetric about an x-axis and a y-axis (figs. 1A-1B), and longer in the x-axis than it is in the y-axis (figs. 1A-1B) wherein the multiple magnetic poles are substantially parallel with the y-axis and arranged in an alternating configuration (figs. 1A-1B; figs. 4-5).
Kulas discloses that the stiff sections can be any shape (¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foldable EFMC have a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces wherein the substantially rectangular cross-section is substantially symmetric about an x-axis and a y-axis, and longer in the x-axis than it is in the y-axis wherein the multiple magnetic poles are substantially parallel with the y-axis and arranged in an alternating configuration as similarly taught by Bevirt since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
As to claim 12, Kulas discloses that one or more of the electrically conductive wires are not embedded in the foldable EFMC (figs. 4, 10).
As to claim 16, Kulas discloses a method of manufacturing a foldable magnetized cable (FMC) (fig. 11), the method comprising:
compounding a polymer and magnetic particles to form a foldable elongated flexible magnetic component (EFMC) (¶0042); and; cutting the foldable EFMC to a desired length (fig. 1, shows a plurality of stiff portions having desired lengths) and;
magnetizing the foldable EFMC with a strong magnetic field (¶0042); and
installing a connector (¶0004; ¶0022) at each end of the foldable EFMC.
However, Kulas does not disclose a foldable elongated flexible magnetic component (EFMC) (¶0042) having a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces
Bevirt discloses a folding cord having a substantially rectangular cross-section defining a pair of substantially planar and parallel major surfaces (fig. 1A).
Kulas discloses that the stiff sections can be any shape (¶0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foldable EFMC have a substantially rectangular cross-section as similarly taught by Bevirt since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
As to claim 17, Kulas does not disclose extruding the foldable EFMC over one or more electrically conductive wires.
Bevirt discloses extruding a foldable cable (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foldable EFMC be extruded as similarly taught by Bevirt in order to provide an efficient process for applying the EFMC to the wiring.
As to claim 18, Kulas discloses routing wires alongside the foldable EFMC (fig. 11).
As to claim 19, Kulas discloses optionally stiffening one or more sections of the foldable EFMC (see 400 and 402).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 7, the prior art or record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim, a combination of limitations disclosing that the stiff sections define a distance between the predefined hinge points; wherein one or more of the stiff sections incorporate one or more polymeric sheets to add stiffness in specific sections. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yue (Pub. No. US 2025/0364156) discloses a magnetic data cable being wound for storage.
Yang et al. (CN207925840U) discloses a magnetic data wire being wound for storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMOL H PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7833. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, TIMOTHY THOMPSON can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/AMOL H PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights