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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 19-20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 9, “delivered to the live utility line by unmanned aerial vehicle” should read –delivered to the utility line by an unmanned aerial vehicle--.
in claim 10, “ 90%, 95%” should read –90%, or 95%--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 is 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.
Claim 11 limitation “the fluoropolymer” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 11 will be interpreted as to require the tape to made of a fluoropolymer, wherein the fluoropolymer comprises one or more of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), PFA (perfluoroalkoxy fluorocarbon), FEP (fluorinated ethylene-propylene), PCTFE (polychlorotrifluoroethylene), ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene), ECTFE (ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene), and PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride).
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) 1-3, 7, 9, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches a process for wrapping a material around a utility line, the process comprising:
disposing an apparatus for applying a material onto a utility line (Page 1 and 3);
wrapping the material, using the apparatus, around the utility line in a live state (Figure 1 and Page 4-5).
Zhu does not teach:
operating an unmanned aerial vehicle to transport an apparatus to the utility
line;
aligning the apparatus with the utility line;
installing the apparatus onto the utility line;
detaching one or more couplings connecting the apparatus to the unmanned
aerial vehicle; and
removing the apparatus from the utility line after cutting the material.
Clarke teaches a process of installing a robotic Stockbridge damper installer onto wires, the process comprising:
operating an unmanned aerial vehicle to transport the installer to the utility
line (Figure 10 and [0084]);
aligning and the installer with the utility line (Figure 11 and [0084]-[0085]); and
detaching the installer to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Figure 10 and [0084]-[0085]).
Clarke teaches the installer can be lifted and attached using a UAV, helicopter, bucket truck, or crane [0084] and [0086].
While Zhu teaches the apparatus is disposed on a power line, Zhu does not disclose the mechanism of installing the apparatus to the power line, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu with the UAV and installation and removal technique of Clarke, a known technique for installing a robotic installer to power lines.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Zhu with and the UAV and aerial positioning device of Clarke to yield the predictable result of installing an installer as taught by Clarke. In the process of Zhu in view of Clarke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art removing the apparatus from the utility line after cutting the material after completion of the wrapping desired by Zhu in order to complete the wrap process and allow for removal of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Zhu in view of Clarke does not explicitly teach operating the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises moving the apparatus in at least one horizontal direction to align the apparatus with the utility line.
However, repeating the process of installing the apparatus, wrapping tape, and removing the apparatus is desired in order to process multiple power lines as taught by Clarke (Clarke, [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operating the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises moving the apparatus in at least one horizontal direction to align the apparatus with the utility line after finish wrapping an adjacent power line to yield the predictable result of wrapping a plurality of power lines.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising moving the apparatus in a vertical direction to install the apparatus on the utility line or uninstall the apparatus from the utility line by unmanned aerial vehicle (Clarke, Figures 9-11 and [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1, the method further comprising:
operating the unmanned aerial vehicle to align an aerial positioning device with the apparatus;
attaching the apparatus to the aerial positioning device; and
operating the unmanned aerial vehicle to transport the apparatus to a second utility line (see rejection of claim 1 above and Clarke, [0084] and Figures 9-11).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches a process for wrapping a material around a utility line, the process comprising:
disposing an apparatus for applying a material onto a utility line (Page 1 and 3);
wrapping the material, using the apparatus, around the utility line in a live state (Figure 1 and Page 4-5).
Zhu does not teach using an apparatus delivered to the live utility line by an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Clarke teaches a process of installing a robotic Stockbridge damper installer onto wires, the process comprising:
operating an unmanned aerial vehicle to transport the installer to the utility
line (Figure 10 and [0084]);
aligning and the installer with the utility line (Figure 11 and [0084]-[0085]); and
detaching the installer to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Figure 10 and [0084]-[0085]).
Clarke teaches the installer can be lifted and attached using a UAV, helicopter, bucket truck, or crane [0084] and [0086].
While Zhu teaches the apparatus is disposed on a power line, Zhu does not disclose the mechanism of installing the apparatus to the power line, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu with the UAV and installation and removal technique of Clarke, a known technique for installing a robotic installer to power lines.
Therefore, in the process of Zhu in view of Clarke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art removing the apparatus from the utility line after cutting the material after completion of the wrapping desired by Zhu.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 9, wherein the live utility lines comprises a distribution system utility line (Zhu, Page 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 16, the primary voltage of the live line is over 600 V (Zhu, Page 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 9, wherein the apparatus comprises:
one or more wheels configured to engage with the live utility line and facilitate
controlled movement of the apparatus along a length of the live utility line (Zhu, Figure 8, items 403-406 and Page 5); and
a material-wrapping subsystem, wherein the material-wrapping subsystem
comprises:
at least one reel configured to hold at least one roll of material (Zhu, Figure 8, item 206 and Page 5-6); and
at least one motor configured to move the at least one reel in an orbital path around the utility line to wrap the utility line using the at least one roll of material as the apparatus moves along the length of the utility line (Zhu, Figure 7, item 302 and Page 5-6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, machine translation relied upon translation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Levy (PG-PUB 2025/0083815).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Zhu in view of Clarke does not explicitly teach detaching the one or more couplings comprises moving the unmanned aerial vehicle to detach at least one hook-and-loop coupling.
Levy teaches securing a payload to a UAV using a hook coupled to the UAV to engage with a loop disposed on the payload (Figure 5A, 5B, and 6; [0031]-[0033], [0037], [0059]-[0064]). Levy teaches moving the unmanned aerial vehicle to attach/detach at least one hook-and-loop coupling (Figure 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Clarke with the magnetic latch of Levy, a known suitable fastener attachment for releasably securing objects to a UAV, thereby detaching by moving the unmanned aerial vehicle to attach/detach at least one hook-and-loop coupling
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185), as applied to claim 1, in further view of McNally (PG-PUB 2016/0023761).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Zhu in view of Clarke does not explicitly teach detaching the one or more couplings comprises modifying an electrical current flowing to at least one electromagnetic coupling.
McNally teaches a process for using a UAV to install objects on wire and catenary structures, the process including attaching an object to the UAV, carrying the object, and releasing the object (Figures 1, 3, and 4 and [0068]). McNally teaches
fastening the object to the UAV using any of the following: automatic mechanical latch, automatic magnetic latch, an electrically-controlled latch, an automated screwdriver,
an automated socket wrench, a take-up wire spool, a gravity-actuated clasp, a spring-driven clamp, screwing together sleeved semi-spheres or hemispheres, driving a
geared winch, closing a grapple, automated mechanical wire grips, pressurized air, an exploding bolt which releases an automatic fastening action, applying adhesive, activating a servo, activating a solenoid (Claim 15 and [0075]-[0077], [0079], [0081], Figure 21 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Clarke with the magnetic latch of McNally, a known suitable fastener attachment for releasably securing objects to a UAV, thereby detaching the coupling by modifying an electrical current lowing to the coupling for operation.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, citations based on machine translation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Li (CN115051294, citations based on machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 1, the process further comprising providing control instructions for operating the apparatus to move the apparatus along the utility line (Zhu, Page 4-6).
Zhu in view of Clarke does not teach heating the material to attach it to the utility line.
Li teaches using a wrapping robot to apply insulating tape to power transmission lines, wherein the robot includes a heating mechanism for heating the wrapped tape, for the predictable result of ensuring a proper seal (Page 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Clarke with a heating mechanism of Li, a known suitable result for curing insulating tape for power lines for the benefit of sealing and curing the protective layer.
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Clarke and Li teaches the process as applied to claim 6, wherein the material comprises a wrap (Zhu, Page 5 and 7).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, citations based on machine translation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185), as applied to claim 9, in further view of Pagliuca (PG-PUB 2014/0102758).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 9.
Zhu in view of Clarke does not teach the fluoropolymer comprises one or
more of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), PFA (perfluoroalkoxy fluorocarbon), FEP
(fluorinated ethylene-propylene), PCTFE (polychlorotrifluoroethylene), ETFE (ethylene
tetrafluoroethylene), ECTFE (ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene), and PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride).
Pagliuca teaches a tape comprising a plurality of layers for insulating and protecting wires [0003], [0013], [0038], [0043]. Pagliuca teaches the tape comprises a first layer having a polymer matrix with mica particles dispersed throughout; a second layer having a polyether ether ketone (PEEK); and a fluoropolymer film disposed on the second layer [0038], [0042], wherein the outer layer is PTFE or ETFE [0024], [0033]-[0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Clarke with the wire insulating tape of Pagliuca, a known suitable tape for insulating and protective wires.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, citations based on machine translation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185) and Pagliuca (PG-PUB 2014/0102758), as applied to claim 9, in further view of Chen (CN115050515A, citations based on machine for citation).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Zhu in view of Clarke and Pagliuca teaches the process as applied to claim 9, wherein a composite coating includes a fluoropolymer (Pagliuca, Figure 1 and [0021]).
Zhu in view of Clarke and Pagliuca does not teach the material comprises at least 10% fluoropolymer, wherein the fluoropolymer comprises one or more of PTFE, PFA, FE , PCTFE, ETFE, ECTFE, and PVVDF.
Chen teaches an insulating layer for wires with the following a chemical content and mass percentage as follow: POM: 1.6%, PBT: 1.7%, PET, 1.9%, PA: 2.9%, DMT: 2.6 %, BG: 1.2%, PEG: 2.9%, TPEE: 22.9%, PVDF: 24.5%, TPU: 27.7%, nanoceramic powder: 2.7%, tetrabutyl titanate: 1.8%, Magnesium acetate: 1.7% (page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify an insulating layer of the tape of Zhu in view of Clarke and Pagliuca with an insulating layer of Chen, a known suitable PVDF-based insulating layer for cables.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN114883056, citations based on machine translation) in view of Clarke (PG-PUB 2023/0072185), as applied to claim 9, in further view of Gottfried (US 7,939,764).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu in view of Clarke teaches the process as applied to claim 9.
Zhu in view of Clarke does not teach wrapping, using the apparatus, one or more layers of a semi-conductive material and one or more layers of insulating material about the live utility line.
Gottfried teaches a fire, heat, and high voltage cable wrap system for protecting wires and cables, commonly used for fireproofing tapes (Col 3, 1-10 and Col 5, ln 41-50), the wrap system comprising:
a support layer for strength being selected from the group consisting of woven, non-woven, knitted, netted or matted materials;
a high voltage arc resistant layer for protection against high voltage;
a fire protective coating layer for protecting the cable wrap system against fire; and a top coating layer for resistance to water, chemicals, gases, environmental factors and mechanical damage (Figure 3).
Gottfried teaches a high voltage first inner layer 22 is a high dielectric strength, arc resistant layer made from thermoset resins, acrylic resins, silicone resins, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylidene fluoride, plastisols and the like (Col 7, ln 31-35 and Figure 3).
Gottfried teaches second layer 32 is a support layer selected from woven or nonwoven, knitted, netted, or matted materials such as polyester, nylon, fiberglass, Nextel, Nomex, aramid fibers, carbonized acrylic fibers, metallic strands, cellulose or polyester films and combinations thereof (Col 7, ln 31-46 and Claim 23).
Given that the second layer comprises a combination of nylon and fiberglass, Nextel, Nomex, aramid fibers, carbonized acrylic fibers, and/or metallic strands, the second layer would provide a semi-conductive material including nylon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Zhu in view of Clarke, in particularly the insulating tape, with the wire insulating tape of Gottfried, a known suitable wrap for insulating and protective wires.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu in view of Clarke and Gottfried teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the semi-conductive material is a support layer including nylon, fiberglass, carbonized acrylic fibers, and combinations thereof (Gottfried, Col 7, ln 31-46 and Claim 23).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu in view of Clarke and Gottfried teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the insulating material includes silicone (Col 7, ln 31-35 and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu in view of Clarke and Gottfried teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein each of the layer has a thickness of 0.005 to 0.1 inches for the four layers (Gottfried, Col 7, ln 48-62 and Claim 8), thereby providing a thin flexible tape with a thickness between 0.508 to 10.16 mm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The claimed range of 1 to 10 mm lies within the prior art range and is therefore obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights