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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 8, 2026. These drawings are not approved because the cross hatching to indicate the conductive and insulative materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required. Specifically, the drawings should be crosshatched as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
92
110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
104
92
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cross hatch all conductive materials (ie wire, shield) as shown Cross hatch all insulative materials (ie insulation, jacket) as shown
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 1 & 4, the abstract recites the terms “Examples include…..” and “Examples also include…..”, respectively, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawig (Pub Num 2021/0108094). Hawig discloses an UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (Figs 1-2B) having improved abrasion resistance and UV protecting properties (abstract), while also being heat and chemical resistant (Paragraph 39) and providing high thermal stability that withstands elevated temperatures (Paragraph 37). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Hawig discloses an UV resistant jacketed conductor (20, Fig 2A-2B) comprising an inner conductor (21), a cross-linked insulation (22, Paragraphs 35-36) that may comprise a carbon black dispersed therein (Paragraph 19) surrounding the inner conductor (21) and an UV stable colored skin layer (23), wherein the skin layer (23) is exposed and may comprise titanium dioxide (Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 3, Hawig discloses that the carbon black may be about 2.5% by weight (i.e. 0.1-15% incorporates 2.5%) and the titanium dioxide being between 0.5-1.2% by weight (i.e. 0.1-15% incorporates 0.5-1.2%, Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 4, Hawig discloses that the inner conductor (21) may be an aluminum or copper conductor (Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 5, Hawig discloses that the crosslinked insulation (22) may be cross-linked polyethylene (i.e. XLPE) having carbon black dispersed therein (Paragraph 19) and the skin layer (23) may be cross linked polyethylene (i.e. XLPE, Paragraph 36). With respect to claim 6, Hawig discloses a UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (100) comprising an inner conductor (110), a cross-linked XLPE insulation (120, Paragraph 48) having carbon black dispersed therein (Paragraph 48) and surrounding the inner conductor (110) and an UV stable colored skin coat (140, embedded carbon black forms a black jacket, Paragraph 48). With respect to claim 8, Hawig discloses that the inner conductor (21) may be an aluminum or copper conductor (Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 9, Hawig discloses that the carbon black may be about 2.5% by weight (i.e. 0.1-15% incorporates 2.5%). With respect to claim 10, Hawig discloses that the carbon black may be about 2.5% by weight (i.e. 0.1-15% incorporates 2.5%) and the titanium dioxide being between 0.5-1.2% by weight (i.e. 0.1-15% incorporates 0.5-1.2%, Paragraph 48). With respect to claims 17-18, Hawig discloses that the UV stable colored skin layer (23) surrounds the crosslinked insulation (22, Paragraph 35), which may be XLPE (Paragraph 36).
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawig (Pub Num 2021/0108094) in view of Yu (Pub Num 2020/0234851). Hawig discloses an UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (Figs 1-2B) having improved abrasion resistance and UV protecting properties (abstract), while also being heat and chemical resistant (Paragraph 39) and providing high thermal stability that withstands elevated temperatures (Paragraph 37), as disclosed above with respect to claim 6 above.
While Hawig discloses the XLPE insulation (22) and UV stable colored skin coat layer (23), Hawig doesn’t necessarily disclose the insulation having a thickness of at least 0.040” (claim 11), nor the XLPE insulation layer having an average thickness of 0.045” (claim 12), nor the UV stable skin coat layer having a thickness of 0.005” (claim 13).
Yu teaches a known jacketed insulated conductor (Figs 1A-1B) comprising enhanced thermal stability when experiencing a variance in temperature (Paragraph 11). Specifically, with respect to claims 11-13, Yu teaches a conductor (100, Fig 1A-1B) comprising an inner conductor (102), a cross-linked insulation (106) made of XLPE (Paragraph 13) and surrounding the inner conductor (102) and an outer coated layer (108), made of XLPE (Paragraph 13), wherein the inner insulation layer (106) may have a thickness of at least 0.040” (i.e. 75-225 mils = 0.075-0.225”, which incorporates the claimed range of at least 0.040 and an average thickness of 0.045”) and wherein the outer coated layer (108) may have a thickness of at least 0.005” (i.e. 75-200 mils =0.075-0.2”, which incorporates the claimed range of at least 0.005”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor of Hawig to comprise the insulation and coat thicknesses configuration as taught by Yu because Yu teaches that such a configuration provides a known jacketed insulated conductor (Figs 1A-1B) comprising enhanced thermal stability when experiencing a variance in temperature (Paragraph 11) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawig (Pub Num 2021/0108094) in view of Yu (Pub Num 2020/0234851), as applied to claim 13 above (herein referred to as modified Hawig), further in view of Montes Valdez et al (Pub Num 2011/0147042, herein referred to as Montes). Modified Hawig discloses an UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (Figs 1-2B) having improved abrasion resistance and UV protecting properties (abstract), while also being heat and chemical resistant (Paragraph 39) and providing high thermal stability that withstands elevated temperatures (Paragraph 37), as disclosed above with respect to claim 13.
However, modified Hawig doesn’t necessarily disclose UV stable skin colored coat being colored with UV stable Polyone color chips or Avient® SMARTBATCH® UV stable Munsell color pellets (claim 14), nor the UV stable colored skin coat comprising about 2-3% UV stable Polyone color chips or Avient® SMARTBATCH® UV stable Munsell color pellets (claim 15).
Montes teaches an UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (Fig 1) that exhibits optimum mechanical properties (Paragraph 11), such as resistance to abrasion (Paragraph 11), UV, and tracking (Paragraph 33). Specifically, with respect to claims 14-15, Montes teaches an jacketed insulated conductor (10) comprising an inner conductor (30) and a UV stable skin colored layer (20), which may be made of XLPE (Paragraph 33), wherein the layer (20) may comprise UV stable Polyone color chips (i.e. white concentrate, Table 1, Paragraph 33), wherein the UV stable Polyone color chips are present at about 3.1% (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor of modified Hawig to comprise the UV stable Polyone color chips configuration as taught by Montes because Montes teaches that such a configuration provides an UV resistant jacketed insulated conductor (Fig 1) that exhibits optimum mechanical properties (Paragraph 11), such as resistance to abrasion (Paragraph 11), UV, and tracking (Paragraph 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various UV jacketed and insulated cables/conductors.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights