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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-5 are 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. The limitation “conventional carbon black” is indefinite. It is unclear how the adjective “conventional” is further limiting “carbon black”. The metes and bounds are unclear. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Volume Resistivity Test Method". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Interpretation The claims use the transitional language “consisting essentially of”. The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03. 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 . Claim (s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meverden et al. (5,312,861) in view of Brigandi et al. (WO 2018/097982) . Regarding claim s 1 -5 : Meverden et al. teach a moisture-curable composition for a cable coating (claim 28) consisting essentially of 54. 2 wt % of an ethylene- vinyltriethoxysilane (EVTEOS) copolymer (claimed (A)), 27 wt% of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ( EVA, claimed (B)), 1 8.6 wt % of carbon black (claimed (C)), and 0.6 wt% of additives (claimed (X)) comprising 0. 2 wt % DBTL ( dibutyltindilaurate ; a silanol condensation catalyst ), and 0. 4 wt% of the antioxidant, Irganox 1010 (Example XII ) . Wherein t he EVTEOS comprises 95.9 wt % ethylene and 4.1 wt % VTEOS (Example XII). Meverden et al. teach a melt index of from 0.2 to 10 g/10 min (column 5, lines 4-14) . The ranges satisfy the claimed range of 0.7 to 3.0 wt % of the formulation. Wherein the EVA comprises 81 wt % ethylene and 19 wt % vinyl acetate (Example XII). The melt index of Meverden et al. overlaps the claimed range. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention , since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 , In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05. Meverden et al. fail to teach carbon black with the claimed BET or OAN-1. However, Brigandi et al. teach a carbon black with a BET of 700 m 2 /g and an oil adsorption number of greater than 200 ml/100g (page 11, lines 3-14) provides a semiconductive shield (page 10, lines 27-28) for a cable coating layer (page 15, lines 25-30) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon black of Brigandi et al. as the carbon black in the examples of Meverden et al. to provide a semiconductive shield for a cable coating layer. Since the composition is the same as claimed, it will possess the claimed volume resistivity. The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position t hat this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position . Con tact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272- 1130. 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. /JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763