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, 6, 10-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovera (2018/0327581) in view of Tateo (JP 10-139911).
Lovera discloses a polymer composition comprising:
(i) 55 to 73 wt% LDPE;
(ii) 23 to 35 wt% of a polypropylene; and
(iii) 3.0 to 8 wt% of a styrene block copolymer, wherein the weight percentages are based on the polymer composition as a whole (see abstract and [0010]-[0015]) (re-claim 1).
Lovera does not disclose the styrene block copolymer being SEBS (re-claim 1). Tateo ([0006]-[0009] of the machine English translation) discloses a polymer composition comprising LDPE, polypropylene, and a styrene block copolymer, wherein the styrene block copolymer is SEBS, and wherein the styrene block copolymer has a styrene content of 10 to 40 wt% ([0009], 15-25 wt%) (re-claims 1 and 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use SEBS, taught by Tateo, as the styrene block copolymer in the polymer composition of Lovera since it is taught by Tateo that such SEBS has improved aging resistance.
Re-claim 6, although not disclosed in Lovera, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use isotactic polypropylene homopolymer for the polypropylene of Lovera since such material is known in the art for being used in polymer compositions because of its strength, high melting point and good chemical resistance.
Re-claim 11, since the modified polymer composition of Lovera comprises material as claimed, it will have the storage modulus as claimed.
Re-claim 12, Lovera discloses the polymer composition not comprising a peroxide.
Claim 17 is a method counterpart of claim 1.
Re-claim 20, since the modified polymer composition of Lovera comprises material as claimed, it can be used in a manufacturing of a recycled insulation layer in a cable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovera in view of Tateo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Desille et al. (2016/0040001).
Lovera and Tateo disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the polypropylene having a melting point of 150°C or more, measured according to ISO 11357-3. Desille et al. discloses a polymer composition comprising a polypropylene which has a melting point of 150°C or more, measured according to ISO 11357-3 ([0122]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the polypropylene taught by Desille et al. for the polypropylene of Lovera since it has high melting point and commercially available.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovera in view of Tateo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grohens et al. (2022/0106233).
Lovera and Tateo disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the LDPE having a density of 915 to 940 kg/m3, determined in accordance with ISO 1183-2. Grohens et al. discloses a polymer composition comprising a LDPE having a density of 915 to 940 kg/m3, determined in accordance with ISO 1183-2 ([0114]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the LDPE as taught by Grohens for the LDPE of Lovera since such material has low density and commercially available.
Claims 1, 13-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (2003/0060525) in view of Lovera and Tateo.
Gupta discloses a cable ([0003], [0007], & [0020]) comprising one or more conductors surrounded by at least one layer, wherein the layer comprises a polymer (polyolefin blend) composition (re-claim 13). Gupta also discloses the layer being an insulation layer (re-claim 14), and the cable not being cross-linked (re-claim 16).
Gupta does not disclose the polymer composition comprising:
(i) 55 to 73 wt% LDPE;
(ii) 23 to 35 wt% of a polypropylene; and
(iii) 3.0 to 8 wt% of a styrene block copolymer, wherein the weight percentages are based on the polymer composition as a whole, and wherein the styrene block copolymer is SEBS (re-claim 1).
Lovera and Tateo disclose a polymer composition as claimed in claim 1, see the above rejection. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the polymer composition, taught by Lovera and Tateo, for the insulation layer of Gupta since such polymer composition has improved physical properties.
Re-claim 15, although not disclosed in Gupta, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the modified insulation layer of Gupta in a cable comprising a conductor, an inner semiconductive layer, an insulation layer, and an outer semiconductive layer, in that order, since such cable is well-known in the art.
Claims 18 and 19 are method counterparts of claims 13 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that there is no indication that any teaching within Tateo would be applicable to a polymer that is not foam, and therefore no reason to modify the teachings of Lovera in view of Tateo. Examiner would disagree. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to do so is found in the references themselves. Tateo, [0009], discloses that SEBS have improved aging resistance.
Applicant argues that Tateo teaches using 20 to 40 wt% of LDPE and 15 to 25 wt% of the block copolymer, while Lovera and amended claim 1 require the amount of block copolymer from 0.5 to 10 wt% and 3.0 to 8 wt% respectively. Tateo teaches away from the amount of block copolymer required by Lovera. Examiner would disagree. Tateo is relied upon only to support the position of using block copolymer SEBS which provide improved aging resistance, not relied on the amount.
Applicant argues that Tateo does not teach or suggest that SEBS is superior to SEPS. Therefore, the person skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine the two references. Examiner would disagree. As stated in the above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Tateo does teach SEBS having improved aging resistance.
Regarding the unexpected results, the fact that the polymer composition taught by Lovera and Tateo comprises material as claimed, it will have such unexpected results. Obviousness is satisfied by a showing of structural similarity between the claims and prior art; it does not require a showing of some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the structurally similar subject matter will have the same or a similar utility as that discovered by the applicant. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ 2d 1897.
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