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 .
Response to Amendment
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhary et al (WO 2020/197654).
Regarding claim 1 and 5-7, Chaudhary teaches a polymeric composition (Abstract) which comprises: an ethylene-silane copolymer ([0006]) comprising an ethylene monomer ([0034]) and a silane monomer such as vinyltrimethoxysilane ([0085]). Chaudhary teaches that the copolymerized silane content is from 0.38 to 0.99 mol % ([0034]) and that there is a Bronsted acid catalyst such as an aryl sulfonic acid which can be benzenesulfonic acid ([0044]). It also contains a filler such as carbon black ([0049]) and a flame retardant ([0053]).
The carbon black is in the composition in the amount which ranges from 0.1 to 35 wt. % of the formulation ([0049]) and the flame retardant is present in the amount from 0.1 to 80 wt. % of the composition ([0053]). The Bronsted acid catalyst is present in the amount from 0.01 to 5 wt. % of the composition ([0047]). Given the taught amounts of the Bronsted acid, the carbon black and the flame retardant, the amounts would overlap the claimed ratio of filler to catalyst weight ratio of 100 to 500.
Chaudhary fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited composition. However, it discloses each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the polymeric composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Chaudhary, including the claimed polymeric composition. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Chaudhary to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predicable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Chaudhary teaches a cable comprising a conductor and the polymeric composition of claim 1 disposed around the conductor (claims 12-13).
Response to Arguments
The claims objections and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4 in the office action mailed on April 16, 2026 have been withdrawn in light of applicants’ amendment filed on June 8, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Chaudhary does not define any ratio between filler and catalyst as a parameter of interest, nor does it provide any teaching that the relative proportions of filler and catalyst should be controlled in a coordinated manner. The cited reference discloses only broad, independently variable ranges which range from approximately 0.02 to 8000, a range covering six orders of magnitude. It, in essence, is hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap.
Examiner’s response: The independent variables of the amounts of the filler and catalyst are taught and the ratio of the two components can be easily calculated. The examiner acknowledges the large range of the calculated ratio. However, absent a showing of criticality, given that the range overlaps the claimed range, the prior art reference reads on the claimed range. The only information used in the above rejection comes only from the prior art reference itself, and therefore, no hindsight reconstruction has been used.
Applicant’s argument: Only compositions within the claimed filler to catalyst weight ratio of amended claim 1 achieve dramatically accelerated curing under ambient conditions containing both the filler and a Bronsted acid catalyst. Applicants point to Table 1 of the specification.
Examiner’s response: The data presented in Table 1 is not commensurate in scope with that of the claimed invention. Most notably, there are only two inventive examples which have a ratio of filler to catalyst of 219 and 146. The claimed range of the ratio is from 100 to 500. While there are examples of no filler, what about ratios of 98 or 510? Are the curing rates of these ratios much diminished from those within the claimed range? This is necessary for showing the criticality of the claimed range. It is also noted, that while applicant argues that the ratio is critical for the accelerated curing rate, both comparative examples CE1 and CE2 have ratios within the claimed range and, apparently, have poor cure times. For these reasons, criticality of the range of the ratio of the filler to the catalyst is not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights