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.
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.
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 1-8, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund et al. (2017/0327675) in view of Tateo (JP 10-139911).
Englund et al. discloses a cable comprising one or more conductors surrounded by at least one non-foamed layer (Englund does not disclose the layer being a foamed layer), wherein the non-foamed layer comprises 15 to 38 wt% of LDPE (polyolefin b, [0033] & [0034]) and 15 to 84 wt% of a polypropylene (polyolefin a, [0028] & [0031]), wherein the wt% are based on the layer as a whole, and wherein the non-foamed layer is an insulation layer ([0162]) (re-claims 1, 2, 8, and 18).
Englund et al. also discloses that the propylene is a propylene homopolymer ([0031]) (re-claim 3); the LDPE is a LDPE homopolymer ([0034]) (re-claims 4, 18, 19); the LDPE has a density of 915 to 940 kg/m3 ([0110]) (re-claim 5); the non-foamed layer does not comprise a peroxide ([0038]) (re-claim 7); the one or mor conductors are surrounded by at least an inner semiconductive layer, the insulation layer, and an outer semiconductive layer, in that order ([0162]) (re-claim 13); the insulation layer is not cross-linked (re-claim 14); and the cable is a power cable (re-claim 17).
Englund et al. does not disclose the insulation layer comprising a styrene block copolymer in an amount of 1.0 to 15 wt% (re-claims 1, 2, 8, and 18).
Tateo discloses a polymer composition comprising LDPE, PP, and 10 wt% of a styrene block copolymer ([0006]) which is SEBS. Tateo discloses that adding a styrene block copolymer, especially SEBS, would improve aging resistance of the composition ([0009]) (re-claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 18).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include 10 wt% of a styrene block copolymer (SEBS), as taught by Tateo, in the composition of Englund et al. to provide the same with aging resistance.
Re-claim 15, since the modified insulation layer of Englund et al. comprises material as claimed, it will have a DC conductivity as claimed.
Claim 16 is a method counterpart of claim 1.
Re-claim 20, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an isotactic polypropylene for the polypropylene homopolymer of Englund et al. since isotactic polypropylene is known in the art for its high strength, high melting point, and good chemical resistance.
Claims 1-8 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund et al. (2017/0327675) in view of Fortelny et al. (NPL, Compatibilization…blends).
Englund et al. discloses a cable comprising one or more conductors surrounded by at least one non-foamed layer (Englund does not disclose the layer being a foamed layer), wherein the non-foamed layer comprises 15 to 38 wt% of LDPE (polyolefin b, [0033] & [0034]) and 15 to 84 wt% of a polypropylene (polyolefin a, [0028] & [0031]), wherein the wt% are based on the layer as a whole, and wherein the non-foamed layer is an insulation layer ([0162]) (re-claims 1, 2, 8, 18, and 19).
Englund et al. also discloses that the propylene is a propylene homopolymer ([0031]) (re-claim 3); the LDPE is a LDPE homopolymer ([0034]) (re-claims 4, 18, 19); the LDPE has a density of 915 to 940 kg/m3 ([0110]) (re-claim 5); the non-foamed layer does not comprise a peroxide ([0038]) (re-claim 7); the one or mor conductors are surrounded by at least an inner semiconductive layer, the insulation layer, and an outer semiconductive layer, in that order ([0162]) (re-claim 13); the insulation layer is not cross-linked (re-claim 14); and the cable is a power cable (re-claim 17).
Englund et al. does not disclose the insulation layer comprising a styrene block copolymer in an amount of 3.0 to 8.0 wt% (re-claims 1, 2, 8, 18, 19).
Fortelny et al. (page 2 and Table 1) discloses a LDPE/PP/SBS blend comprising 3.0 to 8.0 wt% of a styrene block copolymer which is an SBS (re-claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 18, and 19).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include 3.0 to 8.0 wt% of SBS in the LDPE/PP blend of Englund et al. to increase the impact strength of the blend as taught by Fortelny et al.
Re-claim 15, since the modified insulation layer of Englund et al. comprises material as claimed, it will have a DC conductivity as claimed.
Claim 16 is a method counterpart of claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund et al. in view of Kahlen et al. (2017/0044359) and Wang et al. (2020/0392318).
Englund et al. discloses a cable comprising one or more conductors surrounded by at least an inner semiconductive layer, an insulation layer, and an outer semiconductive layer, in that order ([0162]), wherein the insulation layer is not crosslinked ([0038], [0039], and [0205]) and consisting essentially of 70 to 95 wt% LDPE (polyolefin b, [0033]-[0034]) and 5 to 30 wt% of a propylene (polyolefin a, [0031]), wherein the wt% are based on the insulation layer as a whole (re-claims 9 and 10). Englund et al. also discloses the LDPE being a homopolymer ([0034]) (re-claim 11).
Englund et al. does not disclose the polypropylene being an isotactic propylene homopolymer having a density of 890 to 940 kg/m3 as determined in accordance with ISO 1183, an Mw in the range of 200 to 600 kg/mol, and a melting point of at least 150°C (re-claim 9).
Kahlen et al. discloses polyethylene and polypropylene blends comprising an isotactic propylene homopolymer ([0065]) having a density of 890 to 940 kg/m3 as determined in accordance with ISO 1183 ([0066]) and a melting point of at least 150°C ([0067]-[0068]). Wang et al. discloses polypropylene compositions comprising an isotactic propylene homopolymer having an Mw in the range of 200 to 600 kg/mol ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an isotactic propylene homopolymer having a density of 890 to 940 kg/m3 as determined in accordance with ISO 1183, an Mw in the range of 200 to 600 kg/mol, and a melting point of at least 150°C, as taught by Kahlen et al. and Wang et al., for the polypropylene homopolymer of Englund et al. to meet the required physical properties of the insulation layer, such as strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 18, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Englund does not teach a composition comprising a non-crosslinked isotactic polypropylene homopolymer in combination with LDPE. All examples in Englund are crosslinked. Examiner would disagree. Englund, in paragraphs [0038] and [0039], discloses that “the polymer composition comprises no crosslinking agent” and “the polymer composition does not comprise any crosslinking agent”; and in paragraph [205], “the non-crosslinked power cable.” The combination of Englund, Kahlen, and Wang discloses the composition comprising an isotactic propylene homopolymer.
Applicant argues that none of the examples of Englund exemplify a composition comprising LDPE and polypropylene, only compositions comprising LDPE and HDPE. Examiner would disagree. Beside the disclosed examples in Englund, other embodiments are also parts of Englund’s invention. In paragraph [0030], Englund discloses that “According to exemplified further embodiment, the polyolefin (a) is polyethylene. In paragraph [0031], Englund discloses that “According to still a further embodiment, the polyolefin (a) is a propylene homopolymer.” Englund does suggest to use propylene homopolymer in the compositions.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not choose to combine Englund and Tateo because these two documents disclose entirely different end-uses of the polymer and different forms of a polymer. 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).
Englund discloses a composition comprising LDPE and propylene. Tateo, likewise, discloses a composition comprising LDPE and propylene ([0006]-[0008]). Tateo also discloses that adding a styrene block copolymer, especially SEBS, would improve aging resistance of the composition ([0009]). That is a suggestion from Englund to one skilled of the art to combine the two references.
Applicant argues that Tateo merely indicates that SEBS has improved aging resistance, but does not disclose that adding a styrene block copolymer would improve aging resistance of the composition. Examiner would disagree. Applicant, very much, argues that if a component has a specific characteristic being added to a composition, such characteristic is not in the composition. So, if a flame retardant agent is added to a polymeric composition, said composition will not be a flame retardant composition? If an electrically conductive filler is added in a polymeric composition, said composition is not a conductive or a semiconducting composition?
Applicant argues that in paragraph [0013], Tateo discloses the amount of the styrene block copolymer being important for the wettability of the surface of the resulting foam layer. Yet, Tateo in paragraph [0009] also discloses that SEBS, a styrene block copolymer, has improved aging resistance.
Regarding the unexpected results, the fact that the modified composition of Englund comprises material as claimed, such composition would have the unexpected results. Prior art having 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
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
Prosecution Insights