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 filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that SEBS as defined in Tateo is not equivalent to SEBS defined in the present application. Applicant argues that Tateo uses the term SEBS to generally refer to “hydrogenated SBS”. This is different than how SEBS is defined in the instant application.
Examiner would disagree. As defined in the instant application, SEBS refers to poly[styrene-b-(ethylene-co-butylene)-b-styrene]. Tateo discloses “hydrogenated SBS”. It is known that hydrogenated SBS is “poly(styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene)”, see
is butylene a hydrogenated butadiene the same as hydrogenated SBS - Google Search
and
poly (styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene) - Google Search
Therefore, Tateo does teach SEBS as defined in the instant application.
Applicant argues that Tateo’s use of “SEBS” covers both SEBS and SEPS. Consider this definition, there is no indication as to any advantage of SEBS over SEPS. As such, there is no motivation for the person skilled in the art to substitute the SEPS of Lovera based on Tateo.
Examiner would disagree. Tateo discloses, [0009], “Hydrogenated SIS and SBS are called SEBS”. That statement includes “Hydrogenated SBS is called SEBS”, and SEBS is “poly(styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene)”, as defined in the instant application. The Office Action (OA) suggests to use SEBS as taught by Tateo for the styrene block copolymer of Lovera since the SEBS taught by Tateo have improved aging resistance. The OA does not suggest to use SEBS as taught by Tateo for the SEPS of Lovera, as argued by the applicant.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights