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 .
Status of Claims
There are two (2) sets of claims submitted on 15 SEPTEMBER 2023. The claim set considered is the claim set consisting of three (3) pages and the claims have status identifiers.
In the claim set, Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are ‘Original’ ; and Claims 3 and 6 are ‘Currently Amended’.
Current pending claims are Claims 1-10 and are considered on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 SEPTEMBER 2023 was filed. The submission 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant Claim 1 recites steps 1-5, however, after step 5, the comparing step, how is one supposed to determine the reliability. Is there a particular value or different or ratio that would determine how reliable the material is. While steps 1-4 do particular things to the material, step 5 just compares, but nothing in step 5 determines the reliability or establishes what is considered to be reliable.
It is unclear to the Examiner how a method of prediction is be performed, but not step of this decision or establishing a value/threshold of the comparison step is performed .
Even in Claim 2, the second comparison step does establish a particular value or different or ratio that would determine how reliable the material is.
Dependent claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from Claim 1 and are also rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for predicting reliability of a cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, comprising: step 1, subjecting multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to cross-linking reactions, thereby obtaining multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene and enthalpy values of exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials; step 2, subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene to a thermal extension test to obtain elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene; step 3, establishing a curve for predicting reliability of the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material on the basis of the enthalpy values of the exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials and the elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene; step 4, subjecting a cross-linkable material to be predicted to a cross-linking reaction, thereby obtaining an enthalpy value of an exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to be predicted; and step 5, comparing the enthalpy value of the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to be predicted with a standard enthalpy value, wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene.
In general, the method recites determining/establishing a curve for predicting reliability of the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material on the basis of the enthalpy values of the exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials and comparing.
The limitations in steps 3-4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, even if method states language directed to “by a processor” language, “establishing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generating a curve using data obtained in steps 1 and 2.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – step 5 ‘comparing’, which also can be performed using the human mind or with a pen and paper. Both steps 3 and 5 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a mind or a processor to perform both steps 3 and 5 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition a 101 analysis is below:
Step 1: The claim recites at least one step or act. Thus, the claim is to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites a judicial exception. Limitation directed to using the enthalpy values of the exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials and the elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene and comparing the enthalpy value of the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to be predicted with a standard enthalpy value, wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene, which recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature), and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two. This claim identifies the recited exception as an abstract idea. Determining (using the values in the curve) and comparing are both abstract ideas in the form of mental processes.
This claim attempts to determining the enthalpy value of the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material and its comparison to a standard enthalpy value can be performed by a generic computer/processor. This limitation sets forth a judicial exception and can be performed by a human using metal steps or basic critical thinking, which is an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.040 (a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception; No. After step 5 noting else is done. There does not appear to have any additional steps which are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? This does not appear to have ‘significantly’ more; all steps in the method are well-understood routine and conventional (WURC). In analytical method for a prediction of a characteristic of a material what is claim is is WURC. Further, the steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g. mere data gathering step is necessary to use the comparison. Since it is claimed at high level of generality , there is no meaningful limitation, such as particular or unconventional machine or transformation of a particular article.
The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, the step of inputting the enthalpy value and comparing, like above is an insignificant presolution activity.
Regarding claim 3, the step of subject the groups to the technique of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) these parameters are well known in the art as taught by LIU, DC Electrical Breakdown Dependence on the Radial Position of Specimens within HVDC XLPE Cable Insulation, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 24, No. 3; June 2017 and the reference teaches it is technique measure the relation between test sample and reference material in the field of the energy difference and the temperature using program control temperature.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, these steps of obtaining and taking a heat flow curve before the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction and taking tangent points amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g. mere data gathering step is necessary to use the comparison. In addition, the taking tangent points is known in the art to determine the rate of heat transfer through the material can be determined at that specific location.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, this are known in the art of testing for cable insulation properties, as established by the prior art to LIU, DC Electrical Breakdown Dependence on the Radial Position of Specimens within HVDC XLPE Cable Insulation, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 24, No. 3; June 2017.
Regarding claims 8-10, these steps of subjected the groups to the technique of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) these parameters are well known in the art as taught by LIU, DC Electrical Breakdown Dependence on the Radial Position of Specimens within HVDC XLPE Cable Insulation, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 24, No. 3; June 2017.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHONGQING, CN 111060472 A, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 15 SEPTEMBER 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 2, and further in view of LIU, DC Electrical Breakdown Dependence on the Radial Position of Specimens within HVDC XLPE Cable Insulation, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 24, No. 3; June 2017.
An English Machine Translation of the CN document above has been obtained from Google Patent. The rejection below is based off the translation cited and provided in the 892.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 1, the CHONGQING reference discloses a method for predicting reliability of a cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, abstract, comprising:
step 1, subjecting multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to cross-linking reactions, thereby obtaining multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene, Claim 1, pages 3-4, Disclosure of Invention;
step 2, subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene to a thermal extension test to obtain elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene, Claim 1, pages 3-4, Disclosure of Invention
step 3, establishing a curve for predicting reliability of the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials and the elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene, pages 3-4, Disclosure of Invention, steps (3) – (6);
step 4, subjecting a cross-linkable material to be predicted to a cross-linking reaction, page 4, Disclosure of Invention, step (7); and
step 5, comparing the values of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to be predicted with a standard value, wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene, page 4, Disclosure of Invention, step (7).
The CHONGQING discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the enthalpy values and enthalpy values of exothermic peaks are determined.
The LIU reference discloses a method for predicting reliability of a cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, abstract, Section 4, comprising:
step 1, subjecting multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to cross-linking reactions, thereby obtaining multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene and enthalpy values of exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials, Section 2.1, 2.5, 3.2.3;
step 2, subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene to a thermal extension test to obtain elongations under load of the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene, Section 2.5, 3.2.3, the crystallinity is to read on the thermal extension of the XLPE specimens.
Since LIU establishes it is known in the art that the enthalpy of XLPE specimens can be observed as it relates to the crystallinity, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the CHONGQING with the characteristic observed by LIU, the enthalpy, since it is established that that HVDC XLPE cable are known to have non-uniform temperature gradients and inhomogeneous cooling rates after extrusion, the enthalpy will help establish the crystallinity and strength of the cable after use.
Additional Disclosures Included by the combination are Claim 2: wherein the method according to claim 1, wherein after the step 5, the method further comprises: step 6, inputting the enthalpy value of the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to be predicted into the curve for predicting reliability of the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, to obtain an elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted; and step 7, comparing the elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted with a standard value, LIU Section 2.5 and 3.2.3.; Claim 3: wherein the method according to claim 1 is suggested by the combination above including wherein the subjecting multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to cross-linking reactions, thereby obtaining multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene and enthalpy values of exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials comprises: subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to the cross-linking reactions in a differential scanning calorimeter, thereby obtaining the multiple groups of cross-linked polyethylene and the enthalpy values of the exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials, LIU Section 2.5 and 3.2.3, including Figure 10.; Claim 4: wherein the method according to claim 3, wherein the obtaining enthalpy values of exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials comprises: obtaining the enthalpy values of the exothermic peaks of the cross-linking reactions of the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials on the basis of integral regions of heat flow-time graphs generated by the differential scanning calorimeter, LIU Section 2.5 and 3.2.3, including Figure 10.; Claim 6: wherein the method according to claim 1, wherein the cross-linking agent is a peroxide, LIU Section 3.2.1.; and Claim 7: wherein the method according to claim 6, wherein the peroxide is dicumyl peroxide, LIU Section 3.2.1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the integral regions of the heat flow-time graphs are each calculated by: taking a heat flow curve before the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction occurs as a baseline, and taking tangent points between the baseline and the heat flow curve as upper and lower limits for integration.
LIU does teach that in the technique of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) it is used to measure the relation between test sample and reference material in the field of the energy difference and the temperature using program control temperature.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method so that the integral regions of the heat flow-time graphs are each calculated by: taking a heat flow curve before the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction occurs as a baseline, and taking tangent points between the baseline and the heat flow curve as upper and lower limits for integration so that the rate of heat transfer through the material can be determined at that specific location. Based on the material’s thermal conductivity and temperature gradient in the material, the curve will show how the temperature changes over time.
Regarding Claim 8, the method is suggested by the combination. The LIU reference further discloses wherein the method according to claim 3, wherein the subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to the cross-linking reactions in a differential scanning calorimeter comprises: subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials each with a mass of 5 mg to 10 mg, LIU Section 2.5, but is silent to the size of 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm to the cross-linking reactions respectively in a crucible of the differential scanning calorimeter.
It is known in the art of DSC, the set up includes a crucible and since LIU disclose that in the method the mass of test sample is 5±0.5 mg , it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm in the crucible of the DSC so that it properly fits within the DSC set up to accurately represent the sample and effectively determine the characteristic of sample and to have a size of the sample to be large enough to fit in the crucible with the reference sample.
Regarding Claim 9: wherein the method according to claim 8, wherein the subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials respectively to the cross-linking reactions in a differential scanning calorimeter comprises: purging the differential scanning calorimeter with nitrogen gas, and then subjecting the multiple groups of cross-linkable materials each with a mass of 5 mg to 10 mg and a size of 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm to the cross-linking reactions respectively in a crucible of the differential scanning calorimeter, LIU Section 2.5.
Regarding Claim 10, the LIU reference suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the nitrogen gas has a purity greater than 99.999%.
However, LIU does disclose and teach that during differential scanning calorimetry, in the atmosphere, it is of ‘highly pure nitrogen’, Section 2.5.
While LIU teaches the use of ‘highly pure nitrogen’ during calorimetry, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ‘highly pure nitrogen’ to have a purity greater than 99.999% to prevent oxidation, maintain accuracy, enhance sensitivity and support experiment efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LI, The Characteristics of Recyclable Thermo-plastic Materials Based on Polyethylene Blends for Extruded Cables, 9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables, June 2015, pages 1-4, disclose characteristics/properties of binary polyethylene blend system are discussed. The samples are subjected to the well-establish technique of differential scanning calorimetry and the exothermic enthalpies are determined.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 EST.
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, LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797