Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,706

INSULATING RESIN COMPOSITION FOR ELECTRIC POWER CABLE, ELECTRIC POWER CABLE, AND ELECTRIC POWER CABLE CONNECTING PART

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
LEE, PETE T
Art Unit
2848
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
578 granted / 773 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
806
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.8%
+16.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim (s) 1-7,10,13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20230065683A). Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an insulating resin composition (3;Fig.1) for electric power cable (100;Fig.1) comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) (see “the polypropylene mixture resin ie, the base resin according to this embodiment is based on 100 parts by weight of the sum of component (A) and component (B), (A) 50 to 70% by weight of polypropylene; and (B) 30 to 50% by weight of a styrenic elastomer”). Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein a temperature characteristic curve of loss tangent tanԾ obtained by dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at a frequency of 100 rad/s has a high-temperature-side temperature region in which the loss tangent tans is 0.1 or more and 0.4 or less, and a low-temperature-side temperature region in which the loss tangent tanԾ is less than 0.1; and a highest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 240*C or more. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “a temperature characteristic curve of loss tangent tanԾ obtained by dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at a frequency of 100 rad/s has a high-temperature-side temperature region in which the loss tangent tans is 0.1 or more and 0.4 or less, and a low-temperature-side temperature region in which the loss tangent tanԾ is less than 0.1; and a highest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 240*C or more” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 2, Lee fails to specifically disclose wherein a lowest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 90 degree C or more and 175 degree C or less. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “a lowest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 90 degree C or more and 175 degree C or less” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 3, Lee fails to specifically disclose wherein a lowest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 90 degree C or more and 150 degree C or less. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “a lowest temperature of the high-temperature-side temperature region is 90 degree C or more and 150 degree C or less ” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 4, Lee fails to specifically disclose wherein a highest temperature in a range of loss tangent tanԾ of 0.1 or more and 0.3 or less in the high-temperature-side temperature region is 160 degree C or more. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “a highest temperature in a range of loss tangent tanԾ of 0.1 or more and 0.3 or less in the high-temperature-side temperature region is 160 degree C or more” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 5, Lee fails to specifically disclose where in the loss tangent tanԾ at 90 degree C on the temperature characteristic curve of the loss tangent tans is less than 0.1. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “where in the loss tangent tanԾ at 90 degree C on the temperature characteristic curve of the loss tangent tans is less than 0.1” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a content ratio of the polypropylene resin (A)and the styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is 20.0to 55.0: 45.0 to 80.0 by % by mass of the polypropylene resin (A):the styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B)(see “the polypropylene mixture resin ie, the base resin according to this embodiment is based on 100 parts by weight of the sum of component (A) and component (B), (A) 50 to 70% by weight of polypropylene; and (B) 30 to 50% by weight of a styrenic elastomer”). Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein a content proportion of styrene contained in the insulating resin composition for electric power cable is 10%by ss or more and30%by mass or less (see “30% by weight of a styrene elastomer”). Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the polypropylene resin(A)is a homo polypropylene (see “For example, the polypropylene resin is composed of polypropylene block copolymer, reactive polypropylene, random polypropylene, homo polypropylene, block polypropylene, and reactor-made thermoplastic polyolefin produced in a polypropylene polymerization facility. It may be one material selected from the group or a mixture of two or more”). Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the insulating resin composition for electric power cable consists of the polypropylene resin(A) and the styrene based thermoplastic elastomer(B). (see “the polypropylene mixture resin ie, the base resin according to this embodiment is based on 100 parts by weight of the sum of component (A) and component (B), (A) 50 to 70% by weight of polypropylene; and (B) 30 to 50% by weight of a styrenic elastomer”). Regarding claim 14, Lee fails to specifically disclose wherein a dielectric loss tangent when applying an AC electric field of 30kV/mm at 9O degrees C is 0.15% or less. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “wherein a dielectric loss tangent when applying an AC electric field of 30kV/mm at 9O degrees C is 0.15% or less” which is directed towards an intrinsic property of the dielectric material. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 15, Lee fails to specifically disclose wherein a ratio(Q300/Q0) of electric charge amount(Q300) after 5 minutes when applying a DC electric field of 30kV/mm at 90 degrees C relative to initial electric charge amount (QO) is 2.00 or less. However, the composition of material of Lee which discloses an insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising: a polypropylene resin (A) which is a propylene-based polymer; and a styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer (B) is the same as that used by the Applicant. Therefore, the material of Lee inherently meets the claim limitation “wherein a ratio(Q300/Q0) of electric charge amount(Q300) after 5 minutes when applying a DC electric field of 30kV/mm at 90 degrees C relative to initial electric charge amount (QO) is 2.00 or less "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada,911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.Cir.1990). Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses electric power cable comprising (Fig.1): a conductor (1) ; an internal semiconducting layer (2) covering an outer circumference of the conductor ;an insulating layer (3) covering an outer circumference of the internal semiconducting layer (2); and an external semiconducting layer (4) covering an outer circumference of the insulating layer (3). 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 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 of this title, 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. 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) 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiguchi (MY 158149A). Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses where in the styrene-based thermoplastic elastomer(B) contains ac constituent unit derived from styrene (see “the polypropylene mixture resin ie, the base resin according to this embodiment is based on 100 parts by weight of the sum of component (A) and component (B), (A) 50 to 70% by weight of polypropylene; and (B) 30 to 50% by weight of a styrene elastomer”). Lee fails to specifically disclose containing at least one of a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30 a-olefin. Nishiguchi discloses a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30a-olefin (see page 9 line 3-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Nishiguchi with the polypropylene material of Lee in order to increase flame retardancy. Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a constituent unit derived from styrene wherein as100%bymass, the constituent unit derived from styreneis10.0% by mass or more and 60.0%bymass or less (30 to 50% by weight of a styrenic elastomer”). Lee fails to disclose- wherein the constituent unit derived from ethylene is 20.0% by mass or more and 70.0% by mass or less. Nishiguchi discloses wherein the constituent unit derived from ethylene is 20.0% by mass or more and 70.0% by mass or less (see page 5 line 18-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Nishiguchi with the polypropylene material of Lee in order to increase flame retardancy. Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses wherein the polypropylene resin(A)is a random polypropylene (see “For example, the polypropylene resin is composed of polypropylene block copolymer, reactive polypropylene, random polypropylene, homo polypropylene, block polypropylene, and reactor-made thermoplastic polyolefin produced in a polypropylene polymerization facility. It may be one material selected from the group or a mixture of two or more”). Lee fails to specifically disclose containing at least one of a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30 a-olefin. Nishiguchi discloses a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30a-olefin (see page 9 line 3-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Nishiguchi with the polypropylene material of Lee in order to increase flame retardancy. Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the polypropylene resin(A)is a block polypropylene (see “For example, the polypropylene resin is composed of polypropylene block copolymer, reactive polypropylene, random polypropylene, homo polypropylene, block polypropylene, and reactor-made thermoplastic polyolefin produced in a polypropylene polymerization facility. It may be one material selected from the group or a mixture of two or more”). Lee fails to specifically disclose containing at least one of a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30 a-olefin. Nishiguchi discloses a constituent unit derived from ethylene and a constituent unit derived from a C3 to C30a-olefin (see page 9 line 3-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Nishiguchi with the polypropylene material of Lee in order to increase flame retardancy. Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Park (KR 20210140731A). Regarding claim 17, Lee fails to specifically disclose an electric power cable connecting part comprising: a connecting part internal semiconducting layer that covers a connecting part connecting a conductor of one electric power cable with a conductor of another electric power cable , an exposed portion of the conductor of the one electric power cable, and an exposed portion of the conductor of the other electric power connecting part insulating layer and the connecting part insulating layer covering an outer circumference of the connecting part internal semiconducting layer; and a connecting part external semiconducting layer that covers an outer circumference of the connecting part insulating layer. Park discloses an electric power cable connecting part (Fig.1) comprising: a connecting part internal semiconducting layer (12b) that covers a connecting part connecting a conductor (11b) of one electric power cable (10b) with a conductor (11a) of another electric power cable (10a), an exposed portion of the conductor (E2) of the one electric power cable, and an exposed portion of the conductor (E2) of the other electric power connecting part insulating layer (13a) and the connecting part insulating layer (13b)covering an outer circumference of the connecting part internal semiconducting layer (12b); and a connecting part external semiconducting layer (14b) that covers an outer circumference of the connecting part insulating layer (13b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Park to modify the cable of Lee in order to provide electrical connections to perform various circuit operations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 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). /PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604418
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY FOR AN AIRCRAFT SOLID STATE POWER CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604399
SUBSTRATE FOR PRINTED WIRING BOARD AND PRINTED WIRING BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603196
HYBRID SUPERCONDUCTING CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598695
HALF-BRIDGE SWITCH ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592337
CAPACITOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
75%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 773 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