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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/JP2023/007537, being filed on March 1, 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/858,307, filed on October 19, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 19, 2024 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1, 2, and 4-6 lack the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the insulation materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required.
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 line 1, the abstract recites the terms “…….according to one embodiment of the present disclosure”, 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).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 2, the abstract recites the term “comprises”, which is claim improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term “comprises” with the term –has--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-2, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machinaka et al (WO Pat Num 2019/198403, herein referred to Machinaka). Machinaka discloses insulated electrical wire (Figs 1-4), wherein the insulating layer resin composition reduces the dielectric loss tangent of the insulating layer and suppresses metal damage (Paragraph 11), thereby improving in high temperature environments and reducing transmission loss (Paragraph 70) . Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Machinaka discloses an insulated electric wire (1, Fig 1) comprising a linear conductor (2) and an insulating layer (3) stacked on an outer peripheral surface of the conductor (1), wherein the insulating layer (3) may include a resin component (Paragraph 29), an antioxidant (Paragraph 44), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 34), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 29), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 17) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (Paragraph 18), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 44) having a content of the antioxidant is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.05-0.5 parts of Irganox MD1024, Table 2, Nos. 22-25), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a triazole structure (Paragraph 36), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (0.1-0.5%, Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 2, Machinaka discloses an insulated electric wire (10, Fig 2) comprising a plurality of linear conductors (2a, 2b) and an insulating layer (3a, 3b) stacked on an outer peripheral surface of the conductor (10), wherein the insulating layer (3a, 3b) may include a resin component (Paragraph 29), an antioxidant (Paragraph 44), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 34), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 29), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 17) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (Paragraph 18), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 44) having a content of the antioxidant is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.05-0.5 parts of Irganox MD1024, Table 2, Nos. 22-25), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a triazole structure (Paragraph 36), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (0.1-0.5%, Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 6, Machinaka discloses that the insulating layer (3a, 3b) stacked on the outer peripheral surface of each of the conductor (2a, 2b) may include a plurality of insulating layers (Paragraph 6). With respect to claim 7, Machinaka discloses an information transmission cable (i.e. coaxial cable, Figs 3-4) comprising one insulated electrical wire (1), wherein the insulated electric wire (1, Fig 1) comprising a linear conductor (2) and an insulating layer (3) stacked on an outer peripheral surface of the conductor (1), wherein the insulating layer (3) may include a resin component (Paragraph 29), an antioxidant (Paragraph 44), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 34), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 29), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 17) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (Paragraph 18), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 44) having a content of the antioxidant is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.05-0.5 parts of Irganox MD1024, Table 2, Nos. 22-25), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a triazole structure (Paragraph 36), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (0.1-0.5%, Paragraph 38). With respect to claim 11, Machinaka discloses that the insulating layer (3a, 3b) stacked on the outer peripheral surface of each of the conductor (2a, 2b) may include a plurality of insulating layers (Paragraph 6). With respect to claim 12, Machinaka discloses an information transmission cable (10, Fig 2) comprising a plurality of insulated electric wire (1a, 1b, Fig 2), wherein each insulated electrical wire (1a, 1b) each comprise a plurality of linear conductors (2a, 2b) and an insulating layer (3a, 3b) stacked on an outer peripheral surface of the conductor (10), wherein the insulating layer (3a, 3b) may include a resin component (Paragraph 29), an antioxidant (Paragraph 44), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 34), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 29), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 17) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (Paragraph 18), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 44) having a content of the antioxidant is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.05-0.5 parts of Irganox MD1024, Table 2, Nos. 22-25), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a triazole structure (Paragraph 36), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (0.1-0.5%, Paragraph 38).
While Machinaka discloses the ethylene unit comprising 0-10% parts by mass relative to 100 parts of resin composition (Paragraph 18), Machinaka doesn’t necessarily disclose an ethylene unit content of the resin component is 0.5 mol% to 25.0mol% relative to total monomeric units (claims 1, 7, & 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the insulated electrical wire of Machinaka to comprise the ethylene unit content of the resin component is 0.5 mol% to 25.0mol% relative to total monomeric units, 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) 3 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machinaka (WO Pat Num 2019/198403) in view of Shimizu et al (Pub Num 2016/0362566, herein referred to as Shimizu). Machinaka discloses insulated electrical wire (Figs 1-4), wherein the insulating layer resin composition reduces the dielectric loss tangent of the insulating layer and suppresses metal damage (Paragraph 11), thereby improving in high temperature environments and reducing transmission loss (Paragraph 70), as applied to claims 1 & 2 above.
While Machinaka discloses that insulating material (3) comprising a resin component containing a content of antioxidant in the amount of 0.5-0.5 (i.e. 0.05-0.5 parts of Irganox MD1024, Table 2, Nos. 22-25) and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors being 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (0.1-0.5%, Paragraph 38), Machinaka doesn’t necessarily disclose a molecular weight of the antioxidant is 400 or more, and a molecular weight of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 500 or less.
Shimizu teaches a composition for an electrical wire, for protecting an electrical wire bundle, Paragraph 2), while also being excellent in long term heat resistance (Paragraph 17). Specifically, with respect to claims 3 & 8, Shimzu discloses an electrical wire composition comprising an insulating resin component (Paragraph 20), an antioxidant (Paragraph 35), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 26), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 21), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 17) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (i.e. less than 50% incorporates the entire range, Paragraphs 23-24), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 35) having a content of the antioxidant is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.1-0.5 parts Paragraph 37), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a hydrazine structure (Paragraph 26), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.1-0.5 parts Paragraph 28), wherein a molecular weight of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 500 or less (i.e. 400, Paragraph 26).
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 insulated electrical wire of Machinaka to comprise the molecular weight of copper corrosion inhibitors being less than 500 configuration as taught by Shimzu because Shimzu teaches that such an insulating resin composition configuration provides a composition for an electrical wire, for protecting an electrical wire bundle, Paragraph 2), while also being excellent in long term heat resistance (Paragraph 17), 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.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the insulated electrical wire of Machinaka to comprise the molecular weight of antioxidants being 400 or more configuration, 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) 4-5 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machinaka (WO Pat Num 2019/198403) in view of Shimada et al (Pub Num 2013/0008691, herein referred to as Shimada). Machinaka discloses insulated electrical wire (Figs 1-4), wherein the insulating layer resin composition reduces the dielectric loss tangent of the insulating layer and suppresses metal damage (Paragraph 11), thereby improving in high temperature environments and reducing transmission loss (Paragraph 70), as applied to claims 1 & 2 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 5 & 10, Machinaka discloses that the insulating layer (3) comprising the resin composition has an dielectric loss tangent of 3.0 x 10-4 or less at 10 GHz (i.e. 1.80 X 10-6, Paragraph 51).
While Machinaka discloses that insulating material (3) comprising a resin composition as claimed with respect to claims 1 & 2 above, Machinaka doesn’t necessarily disclose the composition having a melt flow rate of the insulating layer is 0.10 g/10 minutes to 10.00 g/10 minutes (claims 4 & 9), nor an elastic modulus of 2000 MPa or less at 20°C, an elastic modulus of 1 MPa or more at 150*C (claims 5 & 10).
Shimada teaches a composition for an electrical wire (Paragraph 1) and/or an electrical wire bundle at a lower cost (Paragraph 8), while also being excellent in flame retardancy, heat and wear resistance, and flexibility (Paragraph 17). Specifically, with respect to claims 4 & 9, Shimada discloses an electrical wire composition comprising an insulating resin component (Paragraph 42-44), an antioxidant (Paragraph 37), and a copper corrosion inhibitors (Paragraph 40), wherein the resin component may be a block polypropylene (Paragraph 43), an ethylene unit content (Paragraph 53) of the resin component being 1 % to 10% by mass relative to total mass of the composition (i.e. 0.5-10 parts, Paragraph 56), wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol structure (Paragraph 37) having a content of the antioxidant by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 1-10 parts Paragraph 98), wherein the copper corrosion inhibitors has a triazole structure (Paragraph 99), and a content of the copper corrosion inhibitors is 0.05 parts by mass to 0.50 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the resin component (i.e. 0.1-0.5 parts Paragraph 99), wherein the resin composition has a melt flow rate of the insulating layer is 0.10 g/10 minutes to 10.00 g/10 minutes (i.e. 0.5-5 g/10min, Paragraph 45). With respect to claims 5 & 10, Shimada discloses that the resin composition has an elastic modulus of 2000 MPa or less at 20°C and/or less than 1MPa (i.e. 800-2000MPa, Paragraph 44).
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 insulated electrical wire of Machinaka to comprise the MFR rate and elastic modulus being less than 2000MPa and more than 1MPa configuration as taught by Shimada because Shimada teaches that such an insulating resin composition configuration provides a composition for an electrical wire (Paragraph 1) and/or an electrical wire bundle at a lower cost (Paragraph 8), while also being excellent in flame retardancy, heat and wear resistance, and flexibility (Paragraph 17).
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 resin composition containing block polypropylene, ethylene unit content, antioxidants, and copper corrosion inhibitors for usage with a plurality of electrical conductors.
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 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights