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 .
Response to Arguments
IN their response dated 10/28/2025 the applicants amended the claim to require shrinkage of the polyolefin to be below 0.7% and content of the polyolefin to be from 95-99.99%. The applicants argued following:
Kulshreshtha does not disclose or suggest inherently such new shrinkage. Additionally one skill in the art would not expect to be able to reduce shrinkage to below 0.7% while also maintaining the presently claimed MFR2. Claimed lower amount of carbon black achieves the dual benefit of reducing shrinkage while maintaining MFRs, compared to a composition containing higher amount of carbon black.
Response: With respect to shrinkage see Kulshershtha’s claim 11. With respect to lower amounts of carbon black see Kulshershtha’s claim 10, wherein the content of carbon black lies squarely in the middle of the claimed range. With respect to MRF2, the MFR of Kulshreshtha is exactly the same range as that of applicants. The content of the polyolefin in Kulshreshtha according to Table 2 (page 19) also lies within the claimed range. As such the chemistry will be the same in both and the same effects will be inherent because compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive and inseparable.
With respect to the teachings of Martinson, including the amount of polyolefin in claim 1 obviates the rejection and applicants arguments are considered moot.
In summary, applicants arguments are not fully persuasive and rejection over Kulshreshta is maintained and will be restated to reflect amendments to the claims.
Status of the claims:
Claims 3 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15 are pending.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kulshreshtha (WO 2019/068815).
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 12-15, Kulshreshtha a composition for an outer layer of a cable (jacket) such as fiber optic cable, which is a communication cable comprising several layers (page 3, background of the invention). According to claim 1 of Kulshreshtha composition comprises multimodal polyolefin and carbon black in amount of 0.25-1% by weight, wherein the composition has a shrinkage of 0.7% or less (claim 11). The content of polyolefin according to Table 2 of Kulshreshtha is 98.35-99.9% by weight (compounding examples 1-4).
With respect to claim 2, the claim 1 of Kulshreshtha states that polyolefin has MFR2 of 0.1-10 g/10 min. Melt flow rate is measured using ISO 1133 standards ( see also Table 1).
With respect to claim 5, according to claim 10 of Kulshreshtha, preferred amount of carbon black is 0.25-0.75% by weight.
With respect to claim 6, while Kulshreshtha does not explicitly recite the MRF2 of the composition, it does teach following: the MFR2 and density of the polyolefin are within the same range and the content of the carbon black is also in the same range as that of the instant invention. AS such if the same amount of carbon black is added to the polyolefin comprising ethylene then its effects on the MFR of the composition will also be the same because compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive and inseparable. As such the MFR2 of the composition will inherently be in the same range as that of the instant invention.
With respect to claim 8, according to claim 1 of Kulshreshtha polyolefin has density of 0.915-0.960 g/cm3 which is equivalent to 915-960 kg/m3. Density is measured according to ISO 1183 standard (Table 1).
With respect to claim 9, according to claims 7-9 of Kulshreshtha the polyolefins is based on ethylene or ethylene and 1-butene.
With respect to claim 10, according to claims 1 and 4 of Kulshreshtha, polyolefin composition further comprises UV stabilizer and antioxidant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulshreshtha (WO 2019/068815) in view of Villalpando (FR 3,047,247).
Discussion of Kulshreshtha from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
Kulshreshtha discloses jacket for cables that comprises polyolefin and carbon black, however Kulshreshtha does not disclose exactly what type of carbon black is suitable for such teachings.
Villalpando also discloses composition for cable jackets [0002] and sheaths that comprises carbon black in polymers such as polyolefins (Abstract).
Villalpando teaches that carbon blacks are semicrystalline (partially crystallized) that have BET of is in a range 40-400 m2/g.
Villalpando teaches that carbon black utilized in his jackets are thermally conductive. The partially crystalized carbon blacks have lower surface energy than their corresponding base carbon blacks and can provide improved the rheology of the polymer. Thermal conductivity further allows to dissipate heat produced by the wire core. BET of carbon black was measured using ASTM 6556.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize carbon black of Villalpando in composition of Kulshreshtha. Using such carbon blacks will improve theology of the polymer and as shown in Villalpando they are used in making cable jackets and sheaths. Additionally, Kulshreshtha is open to any carbon black capable of performing such function.
The obviousness analysis may “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). For example, the analysis may “include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 November 7, 2025