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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/FR2021/052391 filed December 17, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 15, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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(s) 1-5, 8-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christelle (EP 3,670,602).
In regards to claim 1, Christelle teaches an electric cable (1) comprising: at least one elongated electrically conducting element (2) and at least one electrically insulating layer (4) obtained from a polymer composition (polymer composition, paragraph [0006]), wherein the polymer composition comprises:
- at least 50 wt% of a homophase propylene polymer (I1, table 1; 54.96% of the propylene polymer) relative to the total weight of polymers in said polymer composition,
-and at least one homophase ethylene polymer having an elastic modulus strictly greater than 300 MPa (paragraph [0018]).
- said propylene polymer representing a proportion ?mer, paragraph [0028]), relative to the total weight of polymers in said polymer composition.
Christelle does not explicitly teach and the polymer composition comprising at most 10 wt.% of a heterophase propylene polymer, relative to the total weight of polymers in said polymer composition.
Christelle does teach at least a heterophase propylene polymer (paragraph [0012], [0029]); because the claimed materials and wt% quantities are met in Christelle, the limitation “at least one homophase ethylene polymer having an elastic modulus strictly greater than 300 MPa” is considered to be an inherent characteristic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the teachings of Christelle at least one homophase ethylene polymer having an elastic modulus strictly greater than 300 MPa and the polymer composition comprising at most 10 wt% of a heterophase propylene polymer, relative to the total weight of polymers in said polymer composition, 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.
In regards to claim 2, Christelle teaches the electric cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the homophase propylene polymer is a copolymer of propylene (first polymer, paragraph [0014]) and ethylene (second polymer, paragraph [0021]).
In regards to claim 3, Christelle teaches the electric cable as claimed in claim , characterized in that wherein the homophase propylene polymer represents from 55 to 90 wt% (I1, table 1; 54.96% ~ 55% of the propylene polymer), relative to the total weight of polymers in the polymer composition.
In regards to claim 4, Christelle teaches the electric cable in claim 1, wherein the ethylene polymer has an elastic modulus of at least 325 MPa (because the claimed materials and wt% quantities are met in Christelle, the limitation “at least one homophase ethylene polymer having an elastic modulus strictly greater than 325 MPa” is considered to be an inherent characteristic).
In regards to claim 5, Christelle teaches the electric cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the homophase ethylene polymer represents from 10 to 45 wt% (20% by wt. in paragraph [0029]) relative to the total weight of polymers in the polymer composition.
In regards to claim 8, Christelle teaches the electric cable as in claim 1.
Christelle does not explicitly teach the polymer composition comprises from 0 to 8 wt% of a heterophase propylene polymer relative to the total weight of polymers in the polymer composition.
Christelle does teach at least the polymer composition comprising at most 60%wt (the claimed 10 wt% falls within this range) of a heterophase propylene polymer (paragraph [0012], [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the teachings of Christelle at least one homophase ethylene polymer having an elastic modulus strictly greater than 300 MPa and the polymer composition comprising at most 10 wt% of a heterophase propylene polymer, relative to the total weight of polymers in said polymer composition, 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.
In regards to claim 9, Christelle teaches the electric cable as claimed in claim 1,
In regards to claim 10, Christelle teaches the electric cable in claim 1,characterized in that wherein the heterophase propylene polymer comprises a thermoplastic phase of the propylene type and a thermoplastic elastomer phase of the type of copolymer of ethylene and an a2 olefin (paragraph 0014-0015]).
In regards to claim 12, Christelle teaches the electric cable in claim 1,characterized in that wherein the polymer composition does not comprise polar polymer(s) (non-polar, paragraph [0068]),
In regards to claim 13, Christelle teaches the electric cable as claimed in claim,1 characterized in that wherein the polymer composition further comprises at least one antioxidant and/or at least one metal deactivator (antioxidants, paragraph [0055]).
In regards to claim 14, Christelle teaches the electric cable in claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating layer is a noncrosslinked layer (It is preferably not intended to be crosslinked, paragraph [0066]).
In regards to claim 15, Christelle teaches the electric cable in that wherein the electrically insulating layer (4) is directly in physical contact with the elongated electrically conducting element (12) (figure 1).
In regards to claim 16, Christelle teaches the electric cable in that wherein said electric cable further comprises an outer protective sheath (7) surrounding the electrically insulating layer (figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that wherein the ethylene polymer has a density of at most 0.936 g/cm3. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that homophase propylene polymer, the homophase ethylene polymer, and the heterophase propylene polymer when it is present, represent at least 80 wt%, relative to the total weight of polymers in the polymer composition. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that the thermoplastic elastomer phase of the heterophase propylene copolymer represents at least about 20 wt%, and preferably at least about 45 wt%, relative to the total weight of the heterophase propylene copolymer. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho (WO2014/126404) and Alcaraz (EP 3,671,769) teaches electrical cables with a conductor covered in insulation material.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848