Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/695,263

Electric cable comprising a semiconductor layer having a smooth surface

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, CHAU N
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nexans
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
1031 granted / 1520 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
70 currently pending
Career history
1590
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1520 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 2, 5, and 9 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. Claim 2, line 2, “conductive” should be changed to --the conductive--. Claim 5, line 3, “propylene polymer(s)” is unclear to how this relates to “propylene polymer” cited earlier in claim 1. In claim 9, “any one of the preceding claim claim 1” is unclear; and “polar polymer(s)” is unclear to how this relates to “polar polymer(s)” cited in claim 1. 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. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steffl et al. (2013/0161059). Steffl et al. discloses an electric cable ([0120]) comprising at least one semiconductor layer obtained from a polymer composition comprising at least 50% by weight of a propylene polymer and at most 10% by weight of polar polymer(s), relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition, and at least one conductive filler selected from acetylene blacks ([0038]-[0043] and [0099]) (re-claim 1). Steffl et al. also discloses that the polymer composition comprises at least 6% by weight of the conductive filler relative to the total weight of the polymer composition ([0045]) (re-claim 2); the conductive filler is in the form of particles, nodules or aggregates, the primary particles of which have a dimension of at most 50 nm ([0100]) (re-claim 3); the conductive filler has a specific surface area, according to the BET method, ranging from 50 to 150 m2/g ([0100]) (re-claim 4); the polymer composition comprises at least 60% by weight of propylene polymer(s) relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition ([0038]) (re-claim 5); the propylene polymer is a propylene copolymer P1 selected from a homophasic propylene copolymer and a heterophasic propylene copolymer ([0056]) (re-claim 6); the polymer composition further comprises an olefin homopolymer or copolymer P2 (component d in the composition) (re-claim 7); the olefin homopolymer or copolymer P2 is an ethylene polymer (re-claim 8); the polymer composition comprises at most 5% by weight of polar polymer(s) relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition ([0039]) (re-claim 9); the semiconductor layer is a non-crosslinked layer ([0035]) (re-claim 11); said electric cable comprises at least one elongate electrically conductive element, and the semiconductor layer surrounds said elongate electrically conductive element ([0120]) (re-claim 12); said electric cable further comprises an electrically insulating layer (re-claim 13); and said electric cable comprises: at least one elongate electrically conductive element, a first semiconductor layer surrounding the elongate electrically conductive element, an electrically insulating layer surrounding the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer surrounding the electrically insulating layer, at least one of the semiconductor layers being as defined in any one of the preceding claims (re-claim 14). 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelblin et al. in view of Steffl et al. Koelblin et al. discloses an electric cable comprising at least one semiconductor layer obtained from a polymer composition (Table 1) comprising at least 50% by weight of a propylene polymer and at most 10% by weight of polar polymer(s) ([0099]), relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition, and at least one conductive filler (re-claim 1). Koelblin et al. also discloses the composition comprising at least 6 wt% of the conductive filler relative to the total weight of the composition (Table 1) (re-claim 2). Koelblin et al. does not disclose the conductive filler being acetylene blacks (re-claim 1). Steffl et al. discloses a semiconductive composition comprising acetylene black (re-claim 1) which is in the form of particles, nodules or aggregates, the primary particles of which have a dimension of at most 50 nm ([0100]) (re-claim 3); the conductive filler has a specific surface area, according to the BET method, ranging from 50 to 150 m2/g ([0100]) (re-claim 4). It would have been obvious that depending on the end use of the composition, one skilled in the art would use acetylene black as taught by Steffl et al. for the conductive filler of Koelblin et al. to meet the required electrical/mechanical properties of the cable. Koelblin et al., as modified, also discloses that the polymer composition comprises at least 60% by weight of propylene polymer(s) relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition (Table 1) (re-claim 5); the propylene polymer is a propylene copolymer P1 selected from a homophasic propylene copolymer and a heterophasic propylene copolymer (re-claim 6); the polymer composition further comprises an olefin homopolymer or copolymer P2 (Table 1) (re-claim 7); the olefin homopolymer or copolymer P2 is an ethylene polymer (re-claim 8); the polymer composition comprises at most 5% by weight of polar polymer(s) relative to the total weight of polymer(s) in the polymer composition ([0099]) (re-claim 9); the polymer composition further comprises a liquid dielectric ([0102]) (re-claim 10); the semiconductor layer is a non-crosslinked layer ([0127]) (re-claim 11); said electric cable comprises at least one elongate electrically conductive element, and the semiconductor layer surrounds said elongate electrically conductive element (re-claim 12); said electric cable further comprises an electrically insulating layer (re-claim 13); and said electric cable comprises: at least one elongate electrically conductive element, a first semiconductor layer surrounding the elongate electrically conductive element, an electrically insulating layer surrounding the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer surrounding the electrically insulating layer, at least one of the semiconductor layers being as defined in any one of the preceding claims (re-claim 14). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580099
Electrical cable that limits partial discharges
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573525
LEAD ALLOY BARRIER TAPE SPLICE FOR DOWNHOLE POWER CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567514
Low Sag Tree Wire
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567517
LOW-SMOKE, FLAME-RETARDANT DATA COMMUNICATION CABLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548691
CABLE CONNECTION COMPONENT AND CABLE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1520 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month