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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12 and 16 in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 11 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 11, lines 2-3, “the DC conductivity method” lacks antecedent basis.
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, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (2022/0013249).
Hong et al. discloses a cable comprising: a conductor (210) which is surrounded by at least an inner semiconductive layer (212), an insulation layer (214), and an outer semiconductive layer (216) in that order; wherein said inner and/or outer semiconductive layer comprises: an LDPE homopolymer or LDPE copolymer, an antioxidant, carbon black, and a peroxide selected from the group consisting of a saturated aliphatic monofunctional peroxide and a saturated aliphatic bifunctional peroxide; and wherein said insulation layer comprises: an LDPE homopolymer or LDPE copolymer, and a peroxide selected from the group consisting of an aliphatic monofunctional peroxide, an aliphatic bifunctional peroxide and a monofunctional peroxide containing an aromatic group ([0062], [0063], and [0068]-[0071]) (re-claim 1). Hong et al. also discloses that the peroxide used in the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer is 2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dinethyl-hexane ([0064]) (re-claim 3); the inner semiconducive layer has the same chemical composition as the outer semiconductive layer (re-claim 4); the inner and/or the outer semiconductive layer comprises EMA, EEA, or EBA (re-claims 5 and 6); the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer comprises 0.1 to 2.0 wt% peroxide ([0066]) (re-claim 7); the insulation layer comprises an LDPE homopolymer ([0069]) (re-claim 8); a crosslinked cable obtainable by the crosslinking of the cable of claim 1 (re-claim 10); the DC conductivity of the insulation layer is below 64 fS/m when measured according to the DC conductivity method at 70°C since it comprises structure and material as claimed (re-claim 11); and the crosslinked cable as claimed in claim 10 is a DC power cable (re-claim 12).
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.
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.
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 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. in view of Bergqvist et al. (2019/0136022).
Claims 2 and 16 additionally recite the peroxide used in the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer being a liquid at a temperature of 25 to 40°C. Bergqvist et al. discloses a crosslinked polymer composition for cable, comprising a peroxide [2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dinethyl-hexane] which is a liquid at a temperature of 25°C (room temperature, [0056]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the peroxide, 2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dinethyl-hexane, in liquid form at a temperature of 25°C in the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer of Hong et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since such peroxide is well known in the art as taught by Bergqvist et al. ([0056]).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. in view of Hagstrand et al. (WO 2017/220609).
Re-claim 9, Hong et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer comprising: at least 50 wt% of the LDPE or LDPE copolymer ([0065]-[0066]); 30 wt% of carbon black; and 0.1 to 1.5 wt% of peroxide, the insulation layer comprising: at least 80 wt% of the LDPE homopolymer or LDPE copolymer ([0069]); and 0.1 to 2.5 wt% of the peroxide ([0072]). Hong et al. does not disclose the content of the antioxidant being 0.005 to 2.5 wt%. Hagstrand et al. discloses a composition comprising an antioxidant in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 wt% (page 26, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide between 0.1 to 1.0 wt% of the antioxidant in the inner and/or outer semiconductive layer of Hong et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since such amount is well known to one skilled in the art to be included in a composition as taught by Hagstrand et al. (page 26 lines 20-23).
Re-claim 11, as stated in the 102 rejection, in the cable of Hong et al., the DC conductivity of the insulation layer is below 64 fS/m when measured according to the DC conductivity method at 70°C since it comprises structure and material as claimed. However, if the applicant were traversed such assertion, a modification would be followed in view of Hagstrand et al.
Hagstrand et al. dicloses an insulation layer having the DC conductivity below 64 fS/m when measured according to the DC conductivity method at 70°C (page 22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the insulation layer of Hong et al. to have the DC conductivity below 64 fS/m when measured according to the DC conductivity method at 70°C, as taught by Hagstrand et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting cable.
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
