Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/704,326

PROCESS FOR PRODUCING CABLE WITH INSULATION LAYER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
SAWYER, STEVEN T
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dow Silicones Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
733 granted / 1017 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1059
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
60.4%
+20.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1017 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 1-15 is 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 1 states, “an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger”. The “(AP)” language appears to indicate acetophenone but it is not clear how this exactly relates to the Si-H containing scavenger. Further clarifying amendment is required. 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) 1-4, 8, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US PG. Pub. 2018/0142080) in view of Umpleby (US Patent 4803244). Regarding claim 1 – Sun teaches a process comprising: providing an initial cable core comprising (i) a conductor, (ii) an initial insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition ([Abstract] Sun states, “an initial cable core having a conductor, a first semiconductive layer, an initial insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition”) comprising (a) an ethylene-based polymer comprising (1) ethylene monomer ([paragraph 0016] Sun states, “ethylene-based” polymers are polymers prepared from ethylene monomers”), (2) an optional a-olefin comonomer, (3) an optional organosiloxane comonomer, (b) dicumyl peroxide (DCP) ([paragraph 0028] Sun states, “Exemplary organic peroxides include dicumyl peroxide (“DCP”)”), (d) optional curing coagent, and (e) optional anti-oxidant; subjecting the initial cable core to a crosslinking procedure sufficient to crosslink the crosslinkable polymeric composition and form a cable core with a crosslinked insulation layer ([Abstract] Sun states, “subjecting the initial cable core to a crosslinking process”). Sun fails to teach (c) an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger. Umpleby teaches including (c) an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger ([column 2 lines 5-7] Umpleby states, “Hydrosilylation is a chemical reaction that occurs by addition of the Si--H moiety across a carbon-carbon double bond (or a carbon-oxygen double bond)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the process comprising an initial cable core with a conductor and an insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition as taught by Sun with the inclusion of an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger as taught by Umpleby because Umpleby states, “The use of this particular reaction insures that substantially no by products are formed and that no low molecular weight species are generated. The absence of toxic, noxious, or explosive reagents is of major importance for both the manufacture and use of resulting products” [column 2 lines 7-12]. Regarding claim 2 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the process of claim 1 comprising cooling the cable core with crosslinked insulation layer to ambient temperature to form a cooled cable core with a crosslinked insulation layer (Sun [paragraph 0043] Sun states, “Following the crosslinking process, the cable core having a crosslinked insulation, inner, and outer semiconductive layers can be cooled (e.g., to room temperature)”). Regarding claim 3 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the process of claim 2 wherein the crosslinking procedure forms dicumyl peroxide decomposition byproducts selected from the group consisting of cumyl alcohol (CA), acetophenone (AP), methane, alpha methyl styrene, and combinations thereof (Sun [paragraph 0002] Sun states, “In the case of dicumyl peroxide, these byproducts include methane, acetophenone, alpha methylstyrene, and cumyl alcohol”), the process comprising cooling the cable core with crosslinked insulation layer to ambient temperature to form a cooled cable core ([paragraph 0043] Sun states, “Following the crosslinking process, the cable core having a crosslinked insulation, inner, and outer semiconductive layers can be cooled (e.g., to room temperature)”). Sun in view of Umpleby fail to explicitly teach a crosslinked insulation layer having an RAP/CA value less than 0.57. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a crosslinked insulation layer having an RAP/CA value less than 0.57, 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. Reduction of the byproducts will reduce the toxic, noxious, or explosive reagents of the resulting product as discussed by Umpleby in column 2 lines 7-12 as discussed above. Regarding claim 4 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the process of claim 3 wherein the crosslinking procedure is cooled to ambient temperature (Sun [paragraph 0043] Sun states, “Following the crosslinking process, the cable core having a crosslinked insulation, inner, and outer semiconductive layers can be cooled (e.g., to room temperature).”). Sun in view of Umpleby fail to explicitly teach wherein the crosslinked insulation layer of the cooled cable core has an RAP/CA value less than 0.57 at a time from 1 minute after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature to 60 minutes after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a crosslinked insulation layer having an RAP/CA value less than 0.57 at a time from 1 minute after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature to 60 minutes after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature, 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. Reduction of the byproducts will reduce the toxic, noxious, or explosive reagents of the resulting product as discussed by Umpleby in column 2 lines 7-12 as discussed above. Regarding claim 8 – Sun teaches a cable comprising: a cable core comprising (i) a conductor; (ii) a crosslinked insulation layer formed from a crosslinkable polymeric composition ([Abstract] Sun states, “an initial cable core having a conductor, a first semiconductive layer, an initial insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition”) comprising (a) an ethylene-based polymer comprising (1) ethylene monomer ([paragraph 0016] Sun states, “ethylene-based” polymers are polymers prepared from ethylene monomers”), (2) an optional a-olefin comonomer, (3) an optional organosiloxane comonomer, (b) dicumyl peroxide (DCP) ([paragraph 0028] Sun states, “Exemplary organic peroxides include dicumyl peroxide (“DCP”)”), (d) optional curing coagent, and (e) optional anti-oxidant. Sun does not teach (c) an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger. Umpleby teaches including (c) an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger ([column 2 lines 5-7] Umpleby states, “Hydrosilylation is a chemical reaction that occurs by addition of the Si--H moiety across a carbon-carbon double bond (or a carbon-oxygen double bond)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the process comprising an initial cable core with a conductor and an insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition as taught by Sun with the inclusion of an Si-H containing (AP) scavenger as taught by Umpleby because Umpleby states, “The use of this particular reaction insures that substantially no by products are formed and that no low molecular weight species are generated. The absence of toxic, noxious, or explosive reagents is of major importance for both the manufacture and use of resulting products” [column 2 lines 7-12]. Regarding claim 11 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the cable of claim 10 comprising from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% of a curing coagent (Sun [paragraph 0031] Sun states, “the polyallyl crosslinking coagent in an amount of at least 0.3 wt %”). Regarding claim 13 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the cable of claim 8 wherein the cable core is a cooled ([paragraph 0043] Sun states, “Following the crosslinking process, the cable core having a crosslinked insulation, inner, and outer semiconductive layers can be cooled (e.g., to room temperature).”) cable core comprising a crosslinked insulation layer comprising decomposition byproducts selected from the group consisting of cumyl alcohol (CA), acetophenone (AP), methane, alpha methyl styrene, and combinations thereof ([paragraph 0002] Sun states, “In the case of dicumyl peroxide, these byproducts include methane, acetophenone, alpha methylstyrene, and cumyl alcohol”). Sun in view of Umpleby do not explicitly teach the crosslinked insulation layer of the cooled cable core has an RAP/CA value less than 0.57 at a time from 1 minute after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature to 60 minutes after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature and prior to a degassing procedure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the crosslinked insulation layer of the cooled cable core has an RAP/CA value less than 0.57 at a time from 1 minute after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature to 60 minutes after the crosslinking procedure and being cooled to ambient temperature and prior to a degassing procedure, 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. Reduction of the byproducts will reduce the toxic, noxious, or explosive reagents of the resulting product as discussed by Umpleby in column 2 lines 7-12 as discussed above. Regarding claim 15 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the cable of claim 7 comprising a first crosslinked polymeric semiconductive layer (Sun [paragraph 0040] Sun states, “each polymeric semiconductive layer may be crosslinked”); and an optional second crosslinked polymeric semiconductive layer. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Umpleby as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Meng (US PG. Pub. 2015/0075839). Regarding claim 6 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the process of claim 2 comprising degassing (Sun [paragraph 0003] Sun states, “wherein when said crosslinked insulation layer is subjected to a degassing process at 70° C. and standard pressure”), after the cooling ([paragraph 0043] Sun states, “the crosslinking process, the cable core having a crosslinked insulation, inner, and outer semiconductive layers can be cooled (e.g., to room temperature)”), the cooled cable core with a crosslinked insulation layer. Sun in view of Umpleby fail to explicitly teach reducing the amount of acetophenone in the crosslinked insulation layer to less than 1000 ppm. Meng teaches reducing the amount of acetophenone ([table 6] Meng states, “acetophenone content analyses”) in the crosslinked insulation layer to less than 1000 ppm ([table 6] Meng states, “Acetophenone, 300 min. (ppm) 664.5”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the process comprising an initial cable core with a conductor and an insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition with a Si-H containing (AP) scavenger as taught by Sun in view of Umpleby with the acetophenone being less than 1000 ppm as taught by Meng because Meng states, “Following cross-linking, the cross-linked polymeric coating composition can undergo degassing to remove at least a portion of the volatile decomposition byproducts” [paragraph 0032]. Removing the volatile byproducts reduces toxicity and improves durability of the crosslinkable polymeric composition. Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Umpleby as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rueckert (DE3717971). Regarding claim 10 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the cable of claim 8 wherein the crosslinked insulation layer comprises from 95 wt% to 99.9 wt% of an ethylene homopolymer (Sun [paragraph 0031 & 0017] Sun states, “the ethylene-based polymer in an amount ranging from 50 to 98.9 wt %, from 80 to 98.9 wt %, from 90 to 98.9 wt %, or from 95 to 98.9 wt %...the ethylene-based polymer can be an ethylene homopolymer”). Sun in view of Umpleby fail to explicitly teach from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger. Rueckert teaches from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger ([claim 2] Rueckert states, “silicon hydrogen compounds in the range between 0.2 and 5 percent”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the process comprising an initial cable core with a conductor and an insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition and a Si-H containing (AP) scavenger as taught by Sun in view of Umpleby with the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger being within the range of 0.1wt% to 1.0wt% as taught by Rueckert because Rueckert states regarding this material and quantity, “it has been shown that the electrical insulation even after a long period of use, for example is not noticeably impaired in the years…unwanted “water trees” can be prevented” [page 3]. Regarding claim 12 – Sun in view of Umpleby teach the cable of claim 8 wherein the crosslinked insulation layer comprises from 95 wt% to 99.9 wt% of an ethylene/organosiloxane copolymer (Sun [paragraph 0021] Sun states, “the (A) polyolefin polymer is an ethylene/alkenyl silane copolymer comprising from 50 to <100 wt % ethylene monomeric units and from 50 to >0 wt % alkenylsilane comonomeric units; (viii) the (A) polyolefin polymer is an alkenyl-terminated organosiloxane oligomer”). Sun in view of Umpleby fail to explicitly teach from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger. Rueckert teaches from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger ([claim 2] Rueckert states, “silicon hydrogen compounds in the range between 0.2 and 5 percent”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the process comprising an initial cable core with a conductor and an insulation layer comprising a crosslinkable polymeric composition and a Si-H containing (AP) scavenger as taught by Sun in view of Umpleby with the Si-H containing (AP) scavenger being within the range of 0.1wt% to 1.0wt% as taught by Rueckert because Rueckert states regarding this material and quantity, “it has been shown that the electrical insulation even after a long period of use, for example is not noticeably impaired in the years…unwanted “water trees” can be prevented” [page 3]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 7, 9 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm. 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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. /STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593400
WIRING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580368
ANTI-ROTATION DEVICE FOR CABLE STRINGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573823
CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLY WITH SPLICE PLATE ASSEMBLY AND BONDING JUMPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563666
METAL SHEET MATERIAL, LAYERED BODY, INSULATED CIRCUIT BOARD, AND METAL SHEET MATERIAL MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557216
TYPE-3 PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS (PCBS) WITH HYBRID LAYER COUNTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1017 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month