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 Arguments
Regarding prior claim 4 and claim 1 as currently amended, Applicant argues that Horiuchi fails to disclose or teach a melt flow rate at 230°C of the insulating resin composition is 10.0 g/10 min or less. Applicant reasons that Horiuchi describes only the melt flow rate of the thermoplastic elastomer is preferably 0.5 g/10 minutes or less, but does not describe the melt flow rate of the resin composition as a whole.
Applicant also filed a supporting document on 8/7/2006 that shows that TPX has a relatively high melt flow rate, and argues that Horiuchi uses TPX, which is known to have a relatively high melt flow rate.
Therefore, Applicant alleges that it cannot be concluded that Horiuchi discloses or teaches a melt flow rate at 230°C of the insulating resin composition is 10.0 g/10 min or less.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
The Examiner agrees that Horiuchi does not explicitly disclose the melt flow rate of the resin composition as a whole is 10.0 g/10 min or less. However, Horiuchi at [0042] teaches the melt flow rate of a thermoplastic elastomer is preferably 0.5 g/10 minutes or less. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the thermoplastic elastomer is a primary component of the resin composition as a whole. See, for example, Toyooka et al., US 2024/0152051, paragraph [0121], which teaches that the content of the thermoplastic elastomer can be a much as 90% of the resin composition by mass. It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art that the melt flow rate of the resin composition as a whole is 10.0 g/10 min or less when considering that a substantial portion (e.g., up to 90%) of the mass of the resin composition comprises a thermoplastic elastomer having a melt flow rate of 0.5 g/10 minutes or less. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that TPX has a relatively high melt flow rate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the preferred form of TPX for use in a resin composition should have a melt flow rate at 10.0 g/10 min or less. See, for example, Aoyama et al., US 2010/0209694, paragraph [0167], the resin composition uses TPX DX845 having a melt flow rate of 8 g/10 min. See also Yamanaka et al., US 2017/0051132, paragraph [0077], the resin composition using TPX-1 has a melt flow rate of 9.6 g/10 min. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim 6 and new claim 8, Applicant argues that Lin fails to disclose the maleic anhydride is bonded to polypropylene or polyethylene.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Lin at Abstract teaches of grafting modified styrene ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS) and polypropylene, and at page 3, middle section, Lin teaches said graft modification SEBS is maleic anhydride graft SEBS polypropylene. Although Lin does not explicitly recite the phrase “bonded to” in reference to the maleic anhydride graft modification SEBS polypropylene, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that a modified compound is equivalent to the claimed “bonded to”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Lin” (CN 101838436).
Regarding claim 8, Lin anticipates 8. An insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising (Abstract, [0029]; an SEBS thermoplastic elastomer cable insulation material):
a component (a) ([0032]; the polypropylene is any one of homopolymerized polypropylene and copolymerized polypropylene or a mixture of both);
a component (b) ([0033]; the polyolefin elastomer is ethylene propylene diene rubber or ethylene-octene copolymer);
a component (c) ([0031]; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS or acrylic acid-grafted SEBS);
and a component (d) ([0035]; the lubricant is any one or a mixture of ethylene bisstearamide, ethylene bisoleamide, zinc stearate),
wherein the component (a) is polypropylene ([0032]; the polypropylene is any one of homopolymerized polypropylene and copolymerized polypropylene or a mixture of both),
the component (b) is an elastomer ([0033]; the polyolefin elastomer is ethylene propylene diene rubber or ethylene-octene copolymer),
the component (c) is at least one type of resin selected from a resin (c1) and a resin (c2), the resin (c1) being a resin in which at least one type of modified monomer selected from unsaturated organic acid and derivative thereof is grafted, and the resin (c2) being at least one type of ethylene-based copolymer selected from an ethylene-acrylate copolymer, ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ([0031]; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS or acrylic acid-grafted SEBS),
and the component (d) is a water tree retardant ([0035]; the lubricant is any one or a mixture of ethylene bisstearamide, ethylene bisoleamide, zinc stearate);
and wherein the resin (c1) is a resin in which maleic anhydride is bonded to at least one resin selected from polypropylene and polyethylene ([0031], [0033], Abstract; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS is bonded to polypropylene).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lin” (CN 101838436) in view of “Horiuchi” (US 2018/0286537).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses 1. An insulating resin composition for electric power cable comprising (Abstract, [0029]; an SEBS thermoplastic elastomer cable insulation material):
a component (a) ([0032]; the polypropylene is any one of homopolymerized polypropylene and copolymerized polypropylene or a mixture of both);
a component (b) ([0033]; the polyolefin elastomer is ethylene propylene diene rubber or ethylene-octene copolymer);
a component (c) ([0031]; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS or acrylic acid-grafted SEBS);
and a component (d) ([0035]; the lubricant is any one or a mixture of ethylene bisstearamide, ethylene bisoleamide, zinc stearate),
wherein the component (a) is polypropylene ([0032]; the polypropylene is any one of homopolymerized polypropylene and copolymerized polypropylene or a mixture of both),
the component (b) is an elastomer ([0033]; the polyolefin elastomer is ethylene propylene diene rubber or ethylene-octene copolymer),
the component (c) is at least one type of resin selected from a resin (c1) and a resin (c2), the resin (c1) being a resin in which at least one type of modified monomer selected from unsaturated organic acid and derivative thereof is grafted, and the resin (c2) being at least one type of ethylene-based copolymer selected from an ethylene-acrylate copolymer, ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ([0031]; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS or acrylic acid-grafted SEBS),
and the component (d) is a water tree retardant ([0035]; the lubricant is any one or a mixture of ethylene bisstearamide, ethylene bisoleamide, zinc stearate).
Lin does not disclose a melt flow rate at 230° C of the insulating resin composition for electric power cable is 10.0 g/10 min or less.
Horiuchi discloses a melt flow rate at 230° C of the insulating resin composition for electric power cable is 10.0 g/10 min or less ([0042]; the melt flow rate of a thermoplastic elastomer is preferably 0.5 g/10 minutes or less).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Lin’s insulating resin composition with Horiuchi’s resin composition in order so that a resin composition having better flexibility and heat-resistance can be obtained, as Horiuchi at [0041].
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Horiuchi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Lin discloses 2. The insulating resin composition for electric power cable according to claim 1, wherein the resin (c1) is a maleic anhydride graft resin ([0031]; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS).
Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Horiuchi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Lin discloses 5. The insulating resin composition for electric power cable according to claim 1, wherein the component (b) is an olefin-based copolymer or a styrene-based copolymer ([0033]; the polyolefin elastomer is ethylene propylene diene rubber).
Regarding claim 6, Lin in view of Horiuchi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Lin discloses 6. The insulating resin composition for electric power cable according to claim 1, wherein the resin (c1) is a resin in which maleic anhydride is bonded to at least one resin selected from polypropylene, polyethylene and a styrene-based copolymer ([0031], [0033], Abstract; the graft-modified SEBS is maleic anhydride-grafted SEBS is bonded to polypropylene).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Horiuchi and “Sen” (JPS533700).
Regarding claim 3, Lin in view of Horiuchi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Lin does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Sen discloses 3. The insulating resin composition for electric power cable according to claim 1, wherein the component (d) is at least one compound selected from a polyalkylene glycol and derivative thereof, polyglycerin, glycerin fatty acid ester, and sorbitol ester (page 1, bottom; examples of the water immersion charging deterioration inhibitor include fatty acids, fatty acid metal salts, fatty acid esters and the like).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Lin’s insulating resin composition, as modified by Horiuchi, with Sen’s compound in order to provide an electrical insulating material added with a water immersion charge deterioration inhibitor having ester groups, etc., as suggested by Sen at page 1, bottom.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Horiuchi and “Perego” (US 12,488,908).
Lin does not discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Perego discloses 7. An electric power cable comprising (Fig. 1, col. 29, lines 40-49; electric cable 1):
a conductor (Fig. 1, col. 29, lines 40-49; conductor 2);
an internal semiconductor layer disposed on an outer side of the conductor, and encircling the conductor (Fig. 1, col. 29, lines 40-49; inner semiconducting layer 3);
an insulation layer disposed on an outer side of the internal semiconductor layer, encircling the internal semiconductor layer, and consisting of the insulating resin composition for electric power cable according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, col. 29, lines 40-49; insulating layer 4);
and an external semiconductor layer disposed on an outer side of the insulation layer, and encircling the insulation layer (Fig. 1, col. 29, lines 40-49; outer semiconducting layer 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Lin’s insulating resin composition, as modified by Horiuchi, with Perego’s cable in order to give the material thermal and mechanical stability which will make the semiconducting layer not deformable, as suggested by Perego at col. 29, lines 12-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda, US 10,920,034, col. 69, lines 58-62, teaches a resin composition used for suppressing temperature elevation for electronic parts preferably has a melt flow rate at a temperature of 230° C of 0.1 g/10 min or higher and 30 g/10 min or lower.
Iwasaki et al., US 2016/0163414, paragraph [0043], teaches a resin composition is composed of a maleic anhydride-modified polyethylene.
Oyaizu et al., US 2013/0061974, paragraph [0007], teaches a resin composition obtained by modifying polypropylene with maleic anhydride.
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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights