DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 5-7 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 4/10/2025. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 5-6 objected to because of the following informalities: claim status identifier is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5-6 are dependent from a withdrawn claim. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim is interpreted as dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-17, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP0710570) in view of Rogestedt et al (US 6,329,054) and Englund et al (EP 2521137).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-17, 21: Lee teaches a composition for optical fiber sheath comprises an olefin polymer, 0.05-1 wt% of carbon black and 0.01-5 wt% of an UV stabilizer (abstract, table 3). The UV stabilizer can be benzoate etc. (6:38-45). The composition further comprises an antioxidant (6:52-55). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee does not teach the olefin polymer is a multimodal olefin copolymer like claimed.
However, Rogestedt discloses an optical cable sheath composition and teaches using a multimodal polyolefin can improve properties of the cable such as tracking resistance, shrinkage (1:20-45, 3:1-10). The bimodal ethylene polymer has a density of 0.941 g/cm3 and an MFR of 0.4g/10 min, the low molecular weight is an ethylene homopolymer (example 1). Additionally, the multimodal polyolefin has higher melt flow properties and better processability (1:20-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multimodal polyolefin for improved tracking resistance, better melt flow properties and better processability.
Lee does not teach the amount of antioxidant nor the UV agent like claimed.
However, Englund discloses a composition for optical fiber sheath and teaches the composition comprises antioxidant Irganox B225FF in an amount of 0.22 wt% and 0.3 wt% of a UV stabilizer Tinuvin 783 (table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize Tinuvin 783 and Irganox B225FF in an amount like claimed for a composition for optical cable sheath because it is recognized in the art these stabilizers are suitable for a composition for optical cable sheath. Tinuvin 783 reads on the mixture of claim 3. Irganox B225FF reads on the mixture of claim 6. The total amounts of carbon black, UV stabilizer and antioxidants would result in the amount of the multimodal olefin copolymer overlaps the claimed range.
Lee is silent with respect to the claimed shrinkage of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Rogestedt, Lee and Englund have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim 23: Rogestedt teaches the final olefin polymer mixture has a density of 0.920-0.950 g/cm3, and a melt flow rate of 0.2-2 g/10min. The first olefin polymer has a density of 0.955-0.975 g/cm3 and a melt flow rate of 200-600 g/10min (4:10-20, example 1). Instant application discloses the identical features, see PGPub [0024-0025].
The Office realizes that the claimed molecular weight and molecular weight distribution are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches identical polymer mixture with identical melt flow rate of the mixture and the first olefin polymer. Melt flow rate is heavily dependent on molecular weight. And for bimodal mixture, the molecular weight distribution is heavily dependent on the molecular weight of each component. Therefore, the claimed molecular weight and molecular weight distribution would be expected to overlap by a mixture with identical melt flow rate. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument and declaration regarding unexpected results, the data is insufficient to establish unexpected results because 1) while the content of carbon black in Lee is 1% and Rogestedt teaches a content of carbon black of 2.5 in examples 1 and 2, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). 2) the use of bimodal polyolefin mixture does not rely on the presence or the amount of carbon black. 3) Rogestedt discloses the advantage including low shrinkage is achieved by using a multimodal olefin mixture instead of a unimodal used in conventional cable sheathing composition. Rogestedt does not disclose low shrinkage is achieved by including 2.5wt% of carbon black. Applicants’ comparative example PE3 and CE1 further demonstrate it is the polymer instead of carbon black contributes more to the low shrinkage. 4) While applicants realize lower carbon black content reduces the shrinkage, Lee discloses the amount of carbon black is 0.05-1 wt% and Rogestedt discloses using a multimodal olefin mixture can lower shrinkage. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, it is a known fact that the concentration of each component would affect properties of a composition differently.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Ling-Siu Choi can be reached on (571)272-1098. 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights