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
The claim set submitted on 27 MAY 2026 is acknowledged and considered. In the claim set, Claim 1 is ‘Currently Amended’; Claim 2 is ‘Cancelled’; Claim 3-10 are ‘Previously Presented’ or ‘Original’ ; and Claim 11 is ‘New’.
Current pending claims are Claims 1 and 3-11 and are considered on the merits below.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 27 MAY 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 MAY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant goes through the 101 analysis and asserts that the invention is not an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Claim 1, the step direct to ‘establishing a curve…’ is something that can be performed in the mind and is just a mental process of plotting data points which can done by hand or a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which states that performing the abstract idea via pencil or via a computer does not preclude the steps from being abstract., comparing values, and determining that the material is unreliable.
In regards to Step 2A, Prong Two: In the newly added portion, of ‘determining’; once the determination is made there is no application at all therefore is no application of the determination step.
The steps directed towards the two steps of ‘subjecting multiple groups’ and the step of subjecting a cross-linkable material’ and the step of ‘inputting the enthalpy value’ are all steps used in the abstract ideas and are directed towards data gathering (pre-solution activity), which is not a particular practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicants also argue that the determining step provides a practical application, and also provides a technical improvement. This is not persuasive as the determination cannot be the integration of the abstract idea since the determination is the actual abstract idea. Further, the alleged improvement cannot be the abstract idea but must be in a particular technology (See paragraphs 4-7 of MPEP 2106.05(a)).
In the REMARKS, Applicant also asserts that the claims provide significantly more. Based on the amendment to Claim 1, the invention is known the art and is considered to be well-understood, routine and conventional as seen in rejection below of LI, The Characteristics of Recyclable Thermo-plastic Materials Based on Polyethylene Blends for Extruded Cables, 9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables, Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015, and further in view 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.
The rejection below has been amended to reflect the amendment to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 MAY 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 17 MARCH 2026. 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 § 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: 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; comparing the elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted with a standard value; and determining that the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material prepared by the cross-linked polyethylene is unreliable when the elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted is lower than the standard 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 which are abstract ideas.
The steps of establishing and determining, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can occur in the human mind and considered to be a mental process. Even though establishing a curve includes plotting data points, this can be done and performed by hand or even a well-known generic computer, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
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 – ‘comparing’, which also can be performed using the human mind or with a pen and paper. The step of ‘determining’ is 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 establishing the curve is a mental process of plotting data points and can be done by hand or a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which states that performing the abstract idea via pencil or via a computer does not preclude the steps from being abstract and comparing values, and determining that the material is unreliable and can also be performed with the human mind and/or pen/paper. The comparing step is 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 the step of determining, there is no application at all, so there is not application of the determining step. There does not appear to have any additional steps which are significantly more than the abstract idea. The ‘subjecting’ steps are used in the abstract ideas are directed towards data gathering pre-solution activities, which is not a particular practical application, MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 WURC. As mentioned above, the ‘subjecting’ steps are 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 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 in the previous rejection and LI, The Characteristics of Recyclable Thermo-plastic Materials Based on Polyethylene Blends for Extruded Cables, 9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables, Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015, in the instant rejection below. The references teach 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.
Regarding claim 11, the additional comparing step is an abstract idea which can be done with the human mind and or pen/paper.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI, The Characteristics of Recyclable Thermo-plastic Materials Based on Polyethylene Blends for Extruded Cables, 9th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables, Jicable'15 - Versailles 21-25 June, 2015, and further in view 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.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 7, the LI reference discloses a method for predicting reliability of a cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, page 1/4 and 4/4, comprising:
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, page 1/4 - 2/4; Sample preparation, Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), DSC analysis Table 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, page 2/4 Mechanical properties, Table 3;
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, page 4/4 it can be predicted the blends…, page 2/4 DSC analysis, Mechanical properties; [[and]]
LI discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in steps in regards to establishing a curve for predicting reliability. However, LI does disclose sin Table 2 and 3, page 2/4, specific sample proportions of LLDPE : HDPE , as it relates to 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.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LI so that a curve for predicting reliability is established based on the data , values and numbers generated in Table 2 and 3, using that data for comparison, 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 ; comparing the elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted with a standard value; and determining that the cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material prepared by the cross-linked polyethylene is unreliable when the elongation under load of cross-linked polyethylene to be predicted is lower than the standard value, so that any sample proportions of LLDPE : HDPE can be determined and the best blend can be predicted.
LI suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene.
The LIU reference discloses a method for predicting reliability of a cross-linked polyethylene cable insulation material, abstract, Section 4, comprising:
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;
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, wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene, Section 3.2.1.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the LI reference wherein the cross-linkable material comprises a cross-linking agent and polyethylene, in particular dicumyl peroxide as taught by LIU to improve thermal stability, enhancing mechanical strength, chemical resistance and dielectric integrity as well as reduce creep and deformation under load.
Regarding Claim 3, the claimed invention is obvious over the LI in view of LIU. LI further teaches 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, page 1/4-2/4, EXPERMENTAL AND CHARACTERIZATION (all subsections and Tables).
Regarding Claim 4, the claimed invention is obvious over the LI in view of LIU. LI suggests 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, page 1/4-2/4, EXPERMENTAL AND CHARACTERIZATION (all subsections) ; RESULTS and DISCUSSION, DSC analysis.
Regarding Claim 5, the claimed invention is obvious over the obvious over the LI in view of LIU. LI suggests method according to claim 4, 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, page 2/4, DSC analysis, Figure 2.
Regarding Claim 8, the claimed invention is obvious over the obvious over the LI in view of LIU. LI further teaches 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 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, page 1/4 - 2-4, Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Water-tree test, Fig.1.
Regarding Claim 9, the claimed invention is obvious over the obvious over the LI in view of LIU. LI teaches subject the samples to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) in sizes of 5-10 mg and in a crucible, page 1/4 and 2/4, Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) , Water-tree tests. LIU teaches 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%.
LI teaches the samples were fractured in liquid nitrogen, page 2/4, Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), not gas.
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 re Aller, 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the LI reference suggests the claimed invention, but is silent in specifically disclosing a 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.
As seen in LI, page 2/4, DSC analysis and Table 2, standards enthalpy values were calculated for specific samples, Table 2, as it relates to pure high density polyethylene and ratios of low density polyethylene and high density polyethylene proportions, page 1/4 Table 1.
While a ‘comparing’ step is not specifically discloses, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention of LI to extrapolate the specific LLDPE: HDPE and compare the enthalpy value of the exothermic peak of the cross-linking reaction of the cross-linkable material to a standard enthalpy value to predict specific blend ratio to be used as potential cables insulation material.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights