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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 4-14 and 16-21 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and 15 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claim 1, filed on 6/22/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (“Modeling of the Electrical Percolation of Mixed Carbon Fillers in Polymer-Based Composites,” attached 3/26/26) in view of Yodh et al. (US 2006/0293434 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-11 and 16-21, Sun teaches two-filler-containing (MWCNTs + CB or MWCNTs + G) composites (see Results and Discussion on page 459). Sun prepared polymer/mixed-filler composites by first melt mixing a polymer with one filler, PP/CB and polymer/MWCNT (in cases where G was used as the other filler), for 5 min; then, the second filler was added, and the mixing was continued for another 5 min (see Sample Preparation on page 459). For mixed filler systems, the MWCNT contents were kept constant (1 and 0.5 wt %) for PP- and POM-based composites, respectively (see same section). Sun teaches that Figure 1 shows the electrical resistivities of PP and POM filled with different kinds of single fillers and mixed fillers at various filler contents (see same section). The resistivity of PP/MWCNT/CB composite at 3 wt % filler content (1 wt % MWCNTs + 2 wt % CB) is 104 Ω·cm (a conductivity of 1·10-4 S/cm, as calculated by the examiner) (see top of left column on page 460, and FIG. 1a). According to eq 10, the mass fraction required for CB is 1.63 wt % to get the composite percolated (see top of left column on page 463). Because MWCNT content is 1 wt %, the total mass fraction of the conductive filler is 2.63 wt % (see top of left column on page 463). All data shown in Figure 1a fit eq 10 well (see top of left column on page 463).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first carbonaceous structures are selected from a reduced graphite oxide worm-like (rGOW) structure (or particle) and/or branched carbon nanotubes and/or crosslinked carbon nanotubes.
However, Yodh teaches composite materials containing carbon nanotubes and a matrix material (Abstract). Although not an exhaustive listing of all known types of carbon nanotubes that can be used, a number of suitable carbon nanotubes that can be used in various embodiments include the following: single-wall carbon nanotubes, multi-wall carbon nanotubes, armchair carbon nanotubes, zigzag carbon nanotubes, chiral carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotoroids, branched nanotubes (e.g., as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,713, the details pertaining to the preparation branched nanotubes is incorporated by reference), carbon nanotube "knees", coiled carbon nanotubes (L. P. Biro et al., Mat. Sci. and Eng. C 19 (2002) 3-7), or any combination thereof ([0016]). Composite materials composed of nanotubes near the percolation threshold provide electrical conductivities greater than about 10-9 S/cm (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted branched carbon nanotubes for the MWCNTs because these two types of carbon nanotubes were art-recognized equivalents prior to the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Yodh ([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Yodh teaches that thermoplastic resins include ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers (among other polymers) ([0029]; also see [0024]-[0025] and end of [0044]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (“Modeling of the Electrical Percolation of Mixed Carbon Fillers in Polymer-Based Composites,” attached 3/26/26) in view of Yodh et al. (US 2006/0293434 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bhatt et al. (US 2010/0078194 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sun in view of Yodh remains as applied above.
Sun further teaches that polymer composites are widely used in a variety of applications including conductive material, antistatic material, electromagnetic shielding material, and so on (Introduction).
Sun in view of Yodh does not explicitly disclose a power cable comprising the composition.
However, Bhatt teaches a polymeric composition containing at least one polymer and carbon nanotubes (Abstract). Also described are various articles made from the polymeric compositions including cables and other articles (Abstract). Bhatt teaches that the invention relates to carbon nanotubes in various compositions, and further relates to their use in wire and cable compounds, such as shielding compositions ([0002]). Bhatt also teaches a medium or high voltage cable comprising: a) A metal conductor core; b) A semi-conductive shield or conductor shield; c) An insulation layer; and d) An outer semi-conductive layer or insulation shield ([0087]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the composition of Sun and Yodh in a medium or high voltage power cable in order to provide a semi-conductive shield or conductor shield layer for the cable, as suggested by Bhatt (see the paragraphs cited above).
Claim(s) 1, 4-13 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Synergistic effect in conductive networks constructed with carbon nanofillers in different dimensions,” attached 3/26/26) in view of Yodh et al. (US 2006/0293434 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-10, 13 and 16-21, Zhang teaches that an investigation on synergistic effect during network formation for conductive network constructed with carbon nanofillers in different dimensions is conducted (Abstract). Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) and carbon black (CB) are employed as conductive fillers in the system (Abstract). It is observed that the percolation threshold of hybrid fillers filled conductive polymer composites (CPCs) is much lower than that of MWNTs or CB filled CPCs, and it can be reduced from 2.4 to 0.21 wt% by replacing half of the MWNTs with CB (Abstract).
Under Section 2.2, Zhang discloses the following: “Fillers were melt-blended with PP copolymer (co-PP) in an internal mixer (XSS-300, Qingfeng Mould Factory, Shanghai, China) at 200°C, 100 rpm for 15 min in order to prepare the masterbatch with high filler content. The mixture of MWNT and CB are mentioned as ‘Hybrid fillers.’ Then, the masterbatch, co-PP and E43 were added into a double-screw micro-extruder (HAAKE Mini-Lab, Thermo Electron, Germany) at 200°C, 100 rpm for 15 min to prepare composites containing different filler content. The content of E43 is kept at 10 wt% for all composites in the study.” Zhang teaches that E43 is a maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (PP-g-MA) used as a compatibilizer (Section 2.1). The examiner notes that co-PP, either alone or in combination with PP-g-MA, meets the claimed “olefin polymer base resin” limitation. PP-g-MA alternatively meets the claimed “optional additives” limitation.
Zhang teaches that resistivity exceeding 104 Ω·m is not measurable with the current set-up and these films are therefore classified as non-conductive (end of section 2.3.1). The electrical conductivity of isotropic nanocomposites is plotted as a function of filler content in Figure 1 (section 3.1). Composites containing only MWNTs, only CB, both MWNTs and CB in the ratio of 1:1, 1:4 and 4:1 are labeled as: CPC-MWNT, CPC-CB, CPC-MWNT1-CB1, CPC-MWNT1-CB4 and CPC-MWNT4-CB1, respectively (section 3.1). Interestingly, a measurable resistivity is obtained for the composites containing a hybrid filler consisting of 0.25 wt% MWNTs and 0.25 wt% CB (section 3.1 and FIG. 1). Therefore, Zhang teaches a composition in which the co-PP (either alone or in combination with PP-g-MA), the MWNTs (first carbonaceous structures), and the carbon black would be present in the claimed ranges. Figure 1 shows additional CPC-MWNT1-CB1 compositions that would also be within the claimed ranges.
From Figure 1, it can also be seen that the composites containing a hybrid filler consisting of 0.25 wt% MWNTs and 0.25 wt% CB have a resistivity between 102 and 103 Ω·m (a conductivity of between 1·10-5 and 1·10-4 S/cm, as calculated by the examiner). It can further be seen in Figure 1 that the additional CPC-MWNT1-CB1 compositions have lower resistivities and therefore higher conductivities.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first carbonaceous structures are selected from a reduced graphite oxide worm-like (rGOW) structure (or particle) and/or branched carbon nanotubes and/or crosslinked carbon nanotubes.
However, Yodh teaches composite materials containing carbon nanotubes and a matrix material (Abstract). Although not an exhaustive listing of all known types of carbon nanotubes that can be used, a number of suitable carbon nanotubes that can be used in various embodiments include the following: single-wall carbon nanotubes, multi-wall carbon nanotubes, armchair carbon nanotubes, zigzag carbon nanotubes, chiral carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotoroids, branched nanotubes (e.g., as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,713, the details pertaining to the preparation branched nanotubes is incorporated by reference), carbon nanotube "knees", coiled carbon nanotubes (L. P. Biro et al., Mat. Sci. and Eng. C 19 (2002) 3-7), or any combination thereof ([0016]). Composite materials composed of nanotubes near the percolation threshold provide electrical conductivities greater than about 10-9 S/cm (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted branched carbon nanotubes for the MWNTs because these two types of carbon nanotubes were art-recognized equivalents prior to the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Yodh ([0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches that polypropylene (PP, Basell Adsyl 5C39F, Basell, U.S.) is a copolymer (Mw = 320 kg·mol–1, MFI = 5.5 g·min–1) containing 98% of PP and 2% of ethylene (Section 2.1).
Regarding claim 12, Yodh teaches that thermoplastic resins include ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers (among other polymers) ([0029]; also see [0024]-[0025] and end of [0044]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Synergistic effect in conductive networks constructed with carbon nanofillers in different dimensions,” attached 3/26/26) in view of Yodh et al. (US 2006/0293434 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bhatt et al. (US 2010/0078194 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Yodh remains as applied above.
Zhang further teaches that conductive polymer composites (CPCs) have attracted a lot of attention in the past few decades, and have many potential applications including antistatic [1], electromagnetic interference shielding [2], sensing [3–8], flexible solar cell electrodes [9], field emission [10, 11], etc. (Introduction).
Zhang in view of Yodh does not explicitly disclose a power cable comprising the composition.
However, Bhatt teaches a polymeric composition containing at least one polymer and carbon nanotubes (Abstract). Also described are various articles made from the polymeric compositions including cables and other articles (Abstract). Bhatt teaches that the invention relates to carbon nanotubes in various compositions, and further relates to their use in wire and cable compounds, such as shielding compositions ([0002]). Bhatt also teaches a medium or high voltage cable comprising: a) A metal conductor core; b) A semi-conductive shield or conductor shield; c) An insulation layer; and d) An outer semi-conductive layer or insulation shield ([0087]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the composition of Zhang and Yodh in a medium or high voltage power cable in order to provide a semi-conductive shield or conductor shield layer for the cable, as suggested by Bhatt (see the paragraphs cited above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the unexpected synergistic effect achieved by the claimed compositions is confirmed by the experimental data in the present application (applicant refers specifically to Comparative Example CE1, which includes 1.0 wt.% of first carbonaceous structures (CS1) alone in PP, and Inventive Example IE1, which includes 2.0 wt.% of CS1 combined with 2.0 wt.% of carbon black (CB2)).
Regarding this contention, it is unclear how applicant’s data demonstrates unexpected results when compared to Sun and Zhang, as both Sun and Zhang teach compositions that comprise a first carbonaceous structure (MWNTs) in combination with carbon black.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elkovitch (US 2005/0029498 A1) teaches an electrically conductive composition comprising an organic polymer; and a carbon nanotube composition that comprises carbon nanotubes that can rope and have greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt % production related impurities, based on the total weight of the carbon nanotube composition (Abstract). Production related impurities include for example, branched or coiled multiwall carbon nanotubes ([0121] and [0126]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights