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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/14/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed 09/19/2023, 10/17/2023, and 12/13/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vavra (US 20070093392 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 20, Vavra discloses a polymer composition (Paragraph 19/Lines 1-11/“…solid or liquid carriers…”; Paragraph 21/Lines 8-14/“…polymers…”) and an optical fiber cable (Paragraph 37/Lines 4-7/“…fiber optic cables…”), the optical fiber cable comprising:
at least one optical fiber (Paragraph 37/Lines 4-7/“…fiber optic cables…”); and
a polymeric jacket that surrounds the at least one optical fiber (Paragraph 37/Lines 4-7);
wherein the polymeric jacket comprises:
a polymer matrix (Paragraph 19/Lines 1-11/“…solid or liquid carriers…”; Paragraph 21/Lines 8-14/“…polymers…”); and
an aversive additive dispersed in the polymer matrix, the aversive additive comprising:
a porous inorganic material comprising pores (Paragraph 19/Lines 1-11/“…ceramic particles…”; Paragraph 31/Lines 1-2); and
an aversive material contained within the pores of the porous inorganic material (Paragraph 31/Lines 1-2; Paragraph 19/Lines 11-15 and 18-20/“…The at least one active ingredient is ab/adsorbed in/onto the ceramic particles…”).
With regards to claim 9, Vavra discloses the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the aversive material includes at least one of cinnamaldehyde, wintergreen oil, capsaicin, peppermint oil, bergamot oil, geranium oil, predator urine, eucalyptus, bitterants, pinene, lemon citrus oil, cedarwood oil, or garlic oil (Paragraph 41/Lines 1-5).
With regards to claim 25, Vavra discloses the optical fiber cable of claim 20, wherein the polymeric jacket is an outermost jacket of the optical fiber cable (Paragraph 37/Lines 4-7/“…sheaths for covering…”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vavra (US 20070093392 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 20 above in view of Roghanian (WO 2019173905 A1).
With regards to claims 2 and 21, Vavra discloses the polymer composition of claim 1 and the optical fiber cable of claim 20, but is silent regarding the porous inorganic material comprising at least one of cordierite, halloysite, aluminum-titanate composites, magnesium silicate composites, or eucryptite. However, the practice of selecting halloysite as porous inorganic material for a polymer composition exists in the art as exemplified by Roghanian.
Vavra and Roghanian are considered to be analogous in the field of polymer compositions. Vavra discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material. Roghanian discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material wherein the porous inorganic material is halloysite (Roghanian/Paragraph 23; Paragraph 25/Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select halloysite as the material for the porous inorganic material of Vavra as suggested by Roghanian 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regards to claim 6, Vavra discloses the polymer composition of claim 1, but is silent regarding the porous inorganic material comprising halloysite tubes having a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns. However, the practice of selecting halloysite as porous inorganic material for a polymer composition exists in the art as exemplified by Roghanian.
Vavra and Roghanian are considered to be analogous in the field of polymer compositions. Vavra discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material. Roghanian discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material wherein the porous inorganic material is halloysite tubes (Roghanian/Paragraph 23/Porous inorganic material [“…antibacterial agent…”]; Paragraph 25/Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select halloysite as the material for the porous inorganic material of Vavra as suggested by Roghanian 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Vavra and Roghanian are silent regarding the halloysite having a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns for the halloysite tubes of Vavra and Roghanian since doing so would facilitate an increased degree of infusion of the aversive material.
With regards to claim 7, Vavra and Roghanian together disclose the polymer composition of claim 6, but are silent regarding the halloysite tubes having an average inner diameter of from 10 nm to 30 nm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an average inner diameter of from 10 nm to 30 nm since doing so would facilitate an increased degree of infusion of the aversive material.
With regards to claim 22, Vavra and Roghanian together disclose the optical fiber cable of claim 21, wherein the aversive material includes at least one of cinnamaldehyde, wintergreen oil, capsaicin, peppermint oil, bergamot oil, geranium oil, predator urine, eucalyptus, bitterants, pinene, lemon citrus oil, cedarwood oil, or garlic oil (Paragraph 41/Lines 1-5).
With regards to claim 24, Vavra discloses the optical fiber cable of claim 20, but is silent regarding the porous inorganic material comprising halloysite tubes having a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns and an average inner diameter of from 10 nm to 30 nm. However, the practice of selecting halloysite as porous inorganic material for a polymer composition exists in the art as exemplified by Roghanian.
Vavra and Roghanian are considered to be analogous in the field of polymer compositions. Vavra discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material. Roghanian discloses a polymer composition comprising porous inorganic material wherein the porous inorganic material is halloysite tubes (Roghanian/Paragraph 23/Porous inorganic material [“…antibacterial agent…”]; Paragraph 25/Lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select halloysite as the material for the porous inorganic material of Vavra as suggested by Roghanian 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Vavra and Roghanian are silent regarding the halloysite having a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns and an average inner diameter of from 10 nm to 30 nm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a length of 0.2 microns to 1.5 microns and an average inner diameter of from 10 nm to 30 nm for the halloysite tubes of Vavra and Roghanian since doing so would facilitate an increased degree of infusion of the aversive material.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vavra (US 20070093392 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 8, Vavra discloses the polymer composition of claim 1, but is silent regarding a concentration of aversive material in the porous inorganic material being from 60 ng/ml to 10 mg/ml as measured by ultra performance liquid chromatography. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a concentration of aversive material between 60 ng/ml to 10 mg/ml since doing so would facilitate balancing the structural properties of the polymer with the animal aversion properties of the polymer.
With regards to claim 11, Vavra discloses the polymer composition of claim 1, but is silent regarding the polymer composition comprising from 1% to 30% by weight, of the aversive additive. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a quantity of aversive additive that is between 1% to 30% by weight of the polymer composition since doing so would facilitate balancing the structural properties of the polymer with the animal aversion properties of the polymer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the porous inorganic material comprises cordierite beads having a median diameter of from 15 microns to 100 microns in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
Claims 4-5 inherit the allowability of claim 1 on which they depend.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the aversive material comprises fibrils of inorganic material grown on the porous inorganic material, the fibrils having a length greater than 1 micron and a diameter of less than 1 micron in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
With regards to claim 23, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the optical fiber cable of claim 20, wherein the porous inorganic material comprises cordierite having an average diameter of from 15 pm to 100 pm, an average pore size of from 0.5 pm to 2 pm, and an average porosity of from 25% to 75% in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Zhou (US 20220410078 A1) [Paragraph 187]
Bullat (US 5925370 A) [Figs 1-3]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights