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 .
In view of the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner has decided to issue another non-final office action.
The Examiner has also removed the restriction requirement to examine all the claims.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAPAZOGLOU PAPAZOGLOU in view of LAUFER et al US 2019/0127554 A1 and further in view of AMARASIRI WO 2015068123 A1.
Regarding claim 1, PAPAZOGLOU discloses a flame-retardant cable having a transmissive core and an outermost layer made from a flame-retardant polymer composition (see paragraph 0023) comprising:
a) 100 phr of polyvinylchloride (PVC) as base polymer (see tables 5-7),
b} 10-100 phr of a metal hydroxide, as 65-90 phr are included in 10-100 phr (see paragraph 0015 or claim 27).
c) 0-10 phr of antimony trioxide, as 2-9 phr are included in 0-10 phr (see paragraph 0050);
e) 2 to 20 phr of a stabilizer are included in 2 to 20 phr: 2 to 20 phr stabilizer (see paragraph 0014 or claim 27).
However, PAPAZOGLOU fails to explicitly disclose the use of Ca/Zn stabilizer
and 1-3 phr of an a Sepiolite use in skin layer.
LAUFER discloses use of Ca/Zn stabilizer (see paragraphs 0088 and 0100 table 1) and AMARASIRI discloses 2-20 phr of a sepiohte (see attached equivalent abstract.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cable with cCaZn stabilizer in order to improve the reinforcement and mechanical strength in helping to prevent PVC degradation at high processing temperatures and the Ca/Zn stabilizers are non-toxic and comply with environmental regulations in PAPAZOGLOU’s device.
Regarding claim 2, PAPAZOGLOU discloses an electric cable having a transmissive core comprising an electric conductor and an electrically insulating coating (see paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 3, PAPAZOGLOU discloses an optical cable with a transmissive core comprising at least one optical fibre (see paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 4, PAPAZOGLOU discloses an opto-electric cable with a transmissive core comprising at least one optical fibre, an electric conductor and an electrically insulating layer (see paragraphs 0010, 0022).
Regarding claim 5, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the polymer composition farther comprises up to 20 phr of an alkali or alkaline-earth metal carbonate-alkaline (see paragraph 0040) as the phr level is considered an obvious variation.
Regarding claim 6, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the outermost laver is a jacket (see paragraphs 0022, 0053).
Regarding claim 10, PAPAZOGLOU discloses PVC is the sole base polymer of the polymer composition (see paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 11, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the metal hydroxide is selected from magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 12, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the amount of antimony trioxide is in the range of 5-8 phr (see paragraph 0048 or 0050)
Regarding claim 13, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the sepiolite (see AMARASIRI: see equivalent abstract)
Regarding claim 14, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the amount of the alkali or alkaline-earth metal carbonate is in the range of 15-20 phr (see paragraph 0040) as the phr
Regarding claims 15, PAPAZOGLOU discloses the polymer composition further comprises at least one chlorinated paraffin plasticizer and at least one phthalate plasticizer in a ratio of from 1:2.0 to 1:3.5, (see paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding claims 16, PAPAZOGLOU, LAUFER, and AMARASIRI disclose the aforementioned limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the sepolite being not surface modified is considered as material choice, 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 engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the sepolite being not surface modified in order to meet surface treatment required in PAPAZOGLOU.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
PAPAZOGLOU US 20090022462 A1 in view of LAUFER US 20190127554 A1 and AMARASIRI WO 2015068123 A and further in view of Jeon KR 2004730 B1.
Regarding claim 7, PAPAZOGLOU, LAUFER, and AMARASIRI disclose the aforementioned limitations, but fail to disclose the cable with an outermost skin layer. Jeon discloses a cable with an outer skin layer (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the cable with an outermost skin layer such as disclosed in Jeon in order to protect the internal conductors and insulation from physical damage, environmental elements like moisture and UV radiation, and chemical degradation in PAPAZOGLOU’s device.
Regarding claim 8, PAPAZOGLOU discloses a flame-retardant cable having a transmissive core and an outermost made from a flame-retardant polymer composition (see paragraph 0023) comprising:
a) 100 phr of polyvinylchloride (PVC) as base polymer (see paragraph 0015),
b} 10-100 phr of a metal hydroxide as 65-90 as phr are included in 10-100 phr (see paragraph 0023):
c) 0-10 phr of antimony trioxide as 2-9 phr are included in 0-10 phr (see paragraph 0050);
d) 2 to 20 phr of a stabilizer or a mixture of stabilizers as 3-10 are included in 2 to 20 phr (see paragraph 0014 or claim 27).
However, PAPAZOGLOU fails to explicitly disclose the use of Ca/Zn stabilizer; 1-3 phr of an sepiohte, and a cable with an outer skin layer and Jeon discloses a cable with an outer skin layer (see abstract).
LAUFER discloses a CaZn stabilizer (see paragraphs 0088 and 0100 table 1). and AMARASIRI discloses a 2-20 phr of an sepiohte (see equivalent abstract); Jeon discloses a cable with an outer skin layer (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to the cable with CaZn stabilizer in order to improve the reinforcement and mechanical strength in helping to prevent PVC degradation at high processing temperatures and the Ca/Zn stabilizers are non-toxic and comply with environmental regulations in PAPAZOGLOU’s device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the cable with an outermost skin layer such as disclosed in Jeon in order to protect the internal conductors and insulation from physical damage, environmental elements like moisture and UV radiation, and chemical degradation in PAPAZOGLOU’s device.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon discloses the skin layer surrounds a jacket (see abstract) made from a flame-retardant PVC-based polymer composition lacking sepiolite.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jean F. Duverne whose telephone number is (571) 272-2091. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30, Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RENEE S LUEBKE can be reached on (571)272-2009.
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.
/JEAN F DUVERNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights