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 Group I, claims 1-5 & 9 in the reply filed on June 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
In light of the above statement, Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/CN2022/137484,being filed on December 8, 2022.
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. 18/878,741, filed on December 24, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 24, 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 were received on December 24, 2024. These drawings are approved.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
In lines 5-9, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, which is improper content for the abstract. The applicant should delete the references to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention to provide the abstract with proper content.
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 lines 1-2, the abstract recites the terms “A silicone rubber……..thereof, and application thereof”, 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 also objected to because in line 3, the abstract recites the term “comprise”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term “comprise” with the term –having--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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(s) 1, 4-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (CN104087001A, herein referred to as Zhang). Zhang discloses a silicone rubber composition that may be utilized as an insulator shed material (Paragraphs 2 & 28), wherein the composition has high voltage resistance, high/low temperature resistance, excellent flame retardancy, environmental friendliness, flexibility, and simple manufacturing process (Paragraph 8). Specifically, with respect to claims 1 & 9, Zhang discloses a silicone rubber insulator, wherein the silicone rubber insulator shed material (abstract) may be made by extrusion (Paragraph 28) and comprising components of silicone rubber (35-45 parts), iron oxide (2-4 parts), nano-montmorillonite (1.5-3 parts), white carbon black (15-25 parts), aluminum hydroxide (10-25 parts), silane coupling agent (0.80-1.5 parts), vulcanizing agent (i.e. cross linking agent contains 0.4-0.8 parts) and hydroxy silicone oil (i.e. control agent 2-5.8 parts, Paragraph 16). With respect to claim 4, Zhang discloses that the silicone rubber may include methyl vinyl silicone rubber (Paragraph 11). With respect to claim 5, Zhang discloses that the white carbon black includes fumed white carbon black (Paragraph 31) and the vulcanizing agent includes 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)hexane (Paragraph 15).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN104087001A). Zhang discloses a silicone rubber composition capable of being utilized as an insulator shed material (Paragraph 2), wherein the composition has high voltage resistance, high/low temperature resistance, excellent flame retardancy, environmental friendliness, flexibility, and simple manufacturing process (Paragraph 8), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Zhang discloses a silicone rubber insulator, wherein the silicone rubber insulator shed material (abstract) comprising components of silicone rubber (35-45 parts) and 3 to 7 parts by weight of the nano-montmorillonite (3 parts).
While Zhang discloses parts by weight of silicone rubber and parts by weight of aluminum hydroxide, Zhang doesn’t necessarily disclose the nano-montmorillonite including an organic hydrophobic modified nano-montmorillonite (claim 3).
With respect to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the nano-montmorillonite to be made of organic hydrophobic modified nano-montmorillonite, such as DK5® manufactured by Fenghong Company, since it such a material is known and commercially available to improved tensile and flexural strength of polymers of plastics and elastomers of rubbers, while also improving heat distortion temperatures with significantly enhanced dimensional stability and since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN104087001A) in view of Meguriya et al (Pub Num 2013/0266799, herein referred to as Meguriya). Zhang discloses a silicone rubber composition capable of being utilized as an insulator shed material (Paragraph 2), wherein the composition has high voltage resistance, high/low temperature resistance, excellent flame retardancy, environmental friendliness, flexibility, and simple manufacturing process (Paragraph 8), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Zhang discloses a silicone rubber insulator, wherein the silicone rubber insulator shed material (abstract) comprising components of silicone rubber (35-45 parts), 4 to 8 parts by weight of the iron oxide (4 parts), 3 to 7 parts by weight of the nano-montmorillonite (3 parts), white 25 to 40 parts by weight of the white carbon black (25 parts), aluminum hydroxide (10-25 parts), 2-4 part of silane coupling agent (1.5 parts round to 2 parts of coupling agent, abstract), vulcanizing agent (i.e. cross linking agent contains 0.4-0.8 parts) and 3 to 5 parts by weight of the hydroxy silicone oil (i.e. control agent 2-5.8 parts incorporates the entire range of 3-5 parts by weight, Paragraph 16).
While Zhang discloses parts by weight of silicone rubber and parts by weight of aluminum hydroxide, Zhang doesn’t necessarily disclose the silicone rubber insulator shed material comprises 100 parts by weight of the silicone rubber nor 70 to 90 parts by weight of the aluminum hydroxide, nor 2 to 4 parts by weight of the silane coupling agent (claim 2).
Meguriya teaches a silicone rubber composition capable of being utilized as an insulator shed material (abstract), which maintains its performance for a long term and exhibits high acid resistance and long lifetime even on use in serious pollution areas (Paragraph 15). Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Meguriya discloses a silicone rubber insulator comprising 100 parts by weight of the silicone rubber (Paragraph 18), 70 to 90 parts by weight of the aluminum hydroxide (i.e. 30-400 parts incorporates the entire claimed range, Paragraph 20), and 1 to 3 parts by weight of the vulcanizing agent (0.1-10 incorporates the entire claim range (Paragraph 34).
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 insulation composition of Zhang to comprise the claimed range of silicone rubber, aluminum hydroxide, and vulcanizing agent configuration as taught by Meguriya because Meguriya teaches that such a configuration provides a silicone rubber composition capable of being utilized as an insulator shed material (abstract), which maintains its performance for a long term and exhibits high acid resistance and long lifetime even on use in serious pollution areas (Paragraph 15) 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.
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 various silicone rubber compositions for usage as insulators.
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
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights