DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 19 and 21-23 have been amended. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-19 and 21-25 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Applicants do not explicitly disclose the thermoset crosslinked skin layer as “hardened”, but do disclose that the final product has a high hardness, as measured by Shore D durometer. The term “hardened” is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the word “hardened” is defined as “having become or been made hard or harder”.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, the phrase “a electrical conductor” is grammatically incorrect and should be “an electrical conductor”.
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 7 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.
In claim 7, applicants claim the thermoplastic polymer as nylon, and then claim the nylon as “PA6, PA66, PA6T, PA9T, PA12, PA4T”. Applicants also claim the polyethylene as “HDPE, LDPE”. It is unclear as to whether the thermoplastic polymer is limited to any nylon, or any polyethylene, or only those listed.
In claim 21, applicants claim “wherein the core section is a solid free-standing object”.
The only place in the specification refer to anything being “free-standing” is the formation of various components of the electrical insulator, where molds are used to shape these components (i.e. rain sheds) such that a free-standing structure is formed, compared to molding the composition around added components.
The core section of the insulating body is not free-standing, as it chemically linked or attached to the crosslinked exterior. These two sections are not formed separately, but are formed as one, from one composition, which is then subjected to with radiation on the exterior. This crosslinking of the exterior does not result in a separation between the two sections of the insulating material. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the core can be defined as “free-standing” or how this phrase would limit the structure of the insulating body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Penneck (US 4,001,128), in view of Collins (US 2011/0256378) and/or JP 06-128396 and Penneck ‘064 (US 4,399,064), as evidenced by Jackson (US 2006/0173089), CA 1114981, Fuke (To study the effect of electron beam and chemical crosslink on electrical properties of pp: epdm: ldpe ternary blends, J. Mater. Environ. Sci., 11(3), 2020, pp. 389-395), Amphenol (Heat Shrink Tubing 6:1 Shink Tubing, Amphenol TPC Wire & Cable, 2026, 1 page), Midgley (US 5,298,301) and Tyco (WCSM Raychem heat-shrinkable halogen-free heavy-wall insulating tube, Tyco Electronics, 2008, 4 pages). For convenience, the machine translation of JP ‘396 will be cited below.
Penneck teaches a high voltage insulation which is resistant to tracking, exemplifying the preparation of a composition comprising a polymer blend of EPDM, optionally ethylene-ethyl acrylate and LDPE (which as evidenced by CA ‘981 is a thermoplastic blend), a filler, and triallyl cyanurate (which meets applicants’ initiator), is extruded into tubing and irradiated with gamma rays to provide a time to track at 6 kV of 770 minutes (about 13 hours). Penneck teaches that the insulation materials may take the form of heat-shrinkable tubes, udders and sheds for use in cable connections (col. 4, ll. 52-62).
Radiation by way of gamma rays is known to result in the chain scission of the thermoplastic resin. Crosslinking polyolefins by way of irradiation with electron beam or gamma rays is known to form permanent covalent bonds between the individual polymer chains, preventing them from irreversibly separating during subsequent heating, where the crosslinked structure renders the material thermoset and resistant to melting, which is a desirable property for heat-shrinkable articles, as evidenced by Jackson (p. 3, [0030]).
Penneck does not necessarily teach the core section in a non-crosslinked form; however, the method of Penneck is the same method taught by the instant invention, particularly irradiation with an election beam on the outside surface of the molded article. Therefore, the crosslinking would be expected to occur only on the outer surface.
Alternatively, consider the following teachings:
JP ‘396 teaches an electrical insulation having tracking resistance which is crosslinked by way of electron beams, teaching that the degree of crosslinking is such that the gel fraction is 20-90 wt%, teaching that if the gel content exceeds 90 wt%, crosslinking becomes excessive, elongation decreases and the insulation becomes hard and brittle (decrease in elongation at break) resulting in lack of practicality.
Penneck ‘064 also teaches a high voltage insulation which is resistant to tracking, and can be used to form insulation which may take the form of heat-shrinkable tubes, udders and sheds for use in cable connections, and shows that the elongation at break of a crosslinked tubing using electron beam without the peroxide is much greater than that when peroxide was used and cured at 150°C.
Collins teaches that peroxide cures require high temperatures to initiate the radical process, are not selective, and the resulting end product primarily consists of materials that contain fully crosslinked polymers; however, peroxide cures form unwanted by-products, require longer cure times, over expulsion of waste and overall inefficiency leading to increased emissions and carbon footprinting (p. 1, [0004]-[0006]).
Collins teaches that radiation curing, such as electron beam is known to be a suitable alternative to high-temperature peroxide curing methods, where energetic electrons are used instead of heat, which do not readily react to form unwanted byproducts (p. 1, [0009]). Collins teaches that EB processing allows for greater versatility controlling the amount of crosslinking by varying certain parameters such as voltage, current, power, etc. (p. 1, [0009]). Other advantages of EB over other methods include decreased costs, low temperature processing, instantaneous cure times and precise control of cross-linking action to a predetermined depth (p. 1, [0010]).
Collin teaches that partial curing of materials using EB processing results in materials with physical and dynamic properties similar to those obtained using conventional peroxide based methods, but having improved versatility (p. 1, [0014]). Collins teaches that the EB particles only penetrate a portion of the material, about 50% of the total thickness across the entire surface (p. 2, [0015]-[0017]).
Uehara teaches materials similar to Penneck and teaches that they can be crosslinked by way of gamma rays or electron rays, where electron rays are more suitable, teaching electron rays to prepare insulators for electric wires and Penneck does not limit the radiation to only gamma rays, as evidenced by the teaching “In the case of articles that are cross-linked after the shaping operation, especially by the use of high energy radiation of, for example beta- or gamma-rays…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have prepared the insulation of Penneck using electron beam radiation in place of gamma ray radiation to crosslink the insulation, as Penneck does not limit the type of radiation that can be used to crosslink the insulation, where JP ‘396 and Collins teach that electron beam radiation can be used to control the crosslinking content such that the elongation properties can still be met, and Penneck ‘064 shows this method to be suitable for similar insulators.
Penneck in view of JP ‘396, Collins and Penneck ‘064 is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-3, 9-10, 18-19, and 21-22.
As to claim 4, Penneck ‘064 exemplifies the electron dose of radiation as 12 megarads, or 120 kGy. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the appropriate dosage and time necessary to crosslink the polymers of Penneck.
As to claim 5, Collins teaches that EB particles only penetrate a portion of the material, about 50% of the total thickness across the entire surface (p. 2, [0015]-[0017]). Penneck exemplifies a thickness of 0.25 inches or about 6350 micron, where 50% penetration is greater than the claimed 1 micron.
As to claim 6, Collins teaches that EB radiation can be used for precise control of cross-linking action to a predetermined depth (p. 1, [0010]), where the degree of crosslinking can inherently be controlled, and the desired dosage can be controlled based on the desired properties of the article, as evidenced by Jackson, where too low a dosage will result in poor mechanical properties and too high a dosage can result in degradation.
As to claim 7, Penneck teaches the polymeric materials to include polyethylene (col. 4, ll. 27-36).
As to claim 8, Penneck teaches that the polymeric material is at least 10 wt% of the insulating material, and the filler is at least 20 wt%, exemplifying the polymeric content as about 46 wt%.
As to claim 11, Penneck exemplifies extrusion and compression molding, teaching that the compositions can be processed into shaped articles by any of the usual methods (col. 5, ll. 12-14), where those claimed are known in the art as usual methods of shaping.
As to claim 12, electrical insulators are known for protecting electrical conductors, where cables are known electrical conductors.
As to claim 13, Penneck exemplifies the inclusion of alumina, and teaches that other reinforcing fillers can be included, where glass fibers are a known reinforcing filler used in the art.
As to claims 14-15, non-crosslinked polymers are known to be recyclable and choosing to form a new insulator from such is prima facie obvious.
As to claim 17, the types of insulators described are used outdoors.
As to claims 23-25, Penneck does not teach the Shore D hardness of the heat shrinkable insulation; however, consider the following:
Valdiserri exemplifies crosslinked LDPE as having a Shore D hardness of greater than 50 and crosslinked EPDM as having a Shore D hardness of almost 80; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a combination of such to similarly possess a Shore D hardness of between 50-100, as claimed.
Additionally, Shore D hardness increases upon irradiation with electron beams and can be controlled by adjusting the radiation dosage, as evidenced by Fuke (p. 4).
Even further, a universal or known crosslinked polyolefin, flame retardant heat shrink tubing has a Shore D hardness of about 50, as evidenced by Amphenol.
In addition, Midgley teaches heat recoverable articles for use as the outer component of the insulator are available from Raychem, as disclosed in GB 1337951 (col. 4, ll. 3-20), which is the same as US 4,399,064 to Penneck ‘064 above, and a known Raychem heat-shrinkable insulating tubing has a Shore D hardness of 40-60 (Tyco, p. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments have been addressed in the above rejections. Based on the cited prior art above, heat shrinkable tubes for insulation can meet the claimed Shore D hardness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766