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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid et al. (6086792) in view of Brigandi et al. (2020/0071510).
Reid et al. discloses a semiconductive formulation consisting essentially of from 43 to 86 wt% of (A) an olefinic polymer (col. 2, lines 39-40, 25 to 45 wt% of carbon black; therefore the olefinic polymer is from 55 to 75 wt%); from 14.0 to 30.0 wt% of (B) carbon black (col. 2, lines 39-40); and from 0 to 27 wt% of at least one additive which is a silanol condensation catalyst or an antioxidant, wherein the carbon black has BET surface area from 221 to 259 m2/g and the oil absorption number greater than 170 mL/100g (col. 2, lines 49-54) (re-claim 1).
Reid et al. does not disclose the (A) copolymer being an ethylene/vinyl trimethoxysilane copolymer, wherein the (A) copolymer includes 58.5 to 99.5 wt% of ethylenic units and 0.5 to 1.7 wt% of comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane all based on the weight of (A), wherein the wt% of (A) in the formulation and the wt% of the comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane in the (A) copolymer are sufficient such that the amount of the comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane is from 0.7 to 3.0 wt% of the formulation (re-claim 1).
Brigandi et al. discloses a semiconductive formulation comprising an ethylene/vinyl trimethoxysilane copolymer ([0122] and Table 2), wherein the copolymer includes 58.5 to 99.5 wt% of ethylenic units and 0.5 to 1.7 wt% of comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane all based on the weight of the copolymer ([0044]), wherein the wt% of the copolymer in the formulation and the wt% of the comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane in the copolymer are sufficient such that the amount of the comonomeric units derived from the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane is from 0.7 to 3.0 wt% of the formulation.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the copolymer taught by Brigandi et al. for the olefinic polymer of Reid et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting semiconductive formulation since such material is known for being used in semiconductive formulations taught by Brigandi et al., and Reid et al. teaches that any olefinic polymer can be used in the semiconductive formulation. It is noted that the modified semiconductive formulation of Reid et al. is a moisture-curable semiconductive formulation since it comprises material as claimed (re-claim 1).
Re-claim 2, Reid et al., as modified, discloses the optional olefinic hydrocarbon being absent and the (A) copolymer being an ethylene/alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane copolymer.
Re-claim 3, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use furnace black as the carbon black in the semiconductive formulation of Reid et al. since such material is known in the art for being used in semiconductive formulations.
Re-claim 5, Reid et al. discloses a method of making the moisture-curable semiconductive formulation by mixing (B) into (A).
Claims 4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid et al. in view of Brigandi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meverden et al. (5266627).
Re-claim 4, Meverden et al. discloses the formulation including a silanol condensation catalyst and an antioxidant. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a silanol condensation catalyst into the semiconductive formulation of Reid et al. to resist to premature crosslinking during compound and storage but ready undergo curing in the presence of silanol condensation catalyst as taught by Meverden et al. (abstract).
Re-claim 6, Meverden et al. discloses a moisture-cured semiconductive product that is made by moisture curing the formulation having a cross-linked polyethylene network containing carbon black dispersed therein. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to moisture cure the modified semiconductive formulation of Reid et al. to form a cross-linked product that is made by moisture-curing the formulation having a cross-linked polyethylene network containing carbon black dispersed therein, as taught by Meverden et al.
Re-claim 7, Reid et al., as modified, discloses the moisture-cured semiconductive product having a volume resistivity measured separately at 90°C and 130°C of less than 10,000 Ohm-cm each since it consists essentially of the components as claimed.
Re-claim 8, Reid et al., as modified, discloses a manufactured article comprising a shaped form (layer in a cable) of the moisture-cured semiconductive product of claim 6.
Re-claim 9, Meverden et al. discloses a method of making the manufactured article of claim 8 by shaping a melt of the formulation and then subjecting the shaped moisture-curable formulation to moisture-curing conditions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by Meverden et al. when forming the article of Reid et al. since such method is known in the art.
Re-claim 10, Reid et al., as modified, discloses a coated conductor comprising a conductive core and a semiconductive layer at least partially surrounding the core, wherein at least a portion of the semiconductive layer comprises the moisture-cured semiconductive product of claim 6.
Re-claim 11, Meverden et al. discloses a method of making the coated conductor of claim 10 by extruding a layer of a melt of the moisture-curable formulation onto the core, then subjecting the extruded layer of the moisture-curable formulation to moisture-curing conditions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the method taught by Meverden et al. when forming the cable of Reid et al. since these steps of forming a coated conductor are known in the art.
Re-claim 12, Reid et al., as modified, discloses a method of conducting electricity by applying a voltage across the conductive core.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Reid, col. 4 lines 20-28, teaches away from the claimed alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane range of 0.5 to 1.7 wt%. Examiner would disagree. In col. 4, lines 20-28 of Reid, the 5 wt% disclosed therein is the ester content based on the weight of the copolymer, not the content of the alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane.
Applicant argues that neither Brigandi or Reid, taken singly or in any combination, teaches or suggests an alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane being from 0.7 to 1.5 wt% of the formulation as cited in claim 1. Examiner would disagree. First, amended claim 1 calls for 0.5 to 1.7 wt%, not 0.7 to 1.5 wt% as argued. Second, Brigandi does teach an alkenyl-functional hydrolyzable silane being from 0.7 to 1.5 wt% of the formulation ([0044]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841