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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677).
Regarding claim 10, Burger et al. teach an article comprising a polymeric substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0018]) and an antistatic coating thereon (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0014]), wherein the article comprises a cable cover (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 5, paragraph [0106]), and wherein the coating is formed from a coating composition comprising an ionomer having a polymer backbone (page 1, paragraphs [0012], [0014]).
Burger et al. fail to teach wherein the coating composition comprises an ionomer having a polymer backbone and side chains wherein the side chains comprise ionic groups in an acid form and ionic groups in a salt form, wherein the ionic groups in the acid form are sulfonic acid groups and the ionic groups in the salt form are sulfonate groups, wherein 50 to 80% of the ionic groups are sulfonate groups, wherein the sulfonate groups have counter ions M selected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and mixtures thereof; wherein the ionomer is a fluoroionomer, and wherein the fluoroionomer is a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (F2C=CF2) and perfluorinated vinyl ether. However, Kourtakis et al. teach an article comprising a polymeric substrate (page 2, paragraph [0017]) and a coating thereon (page 2, paragraph [0017]), wherein the coating is formed from a coating composition comprising an ionomer having a polymer backbone and side chains (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 4, paragraph [0035]), wherein the side chains comprise ionic groups in an acid form and ionic groups in a salt form (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 4, paragraph [0035], page 6, paragraph [0049]), wherein the ionic groups in the acid form are sulfonic acid groups and ionic groups in the salt form are sulfonate groups (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 4, paragraph [0035], page 6, paragraph [0049]), wherein the sulfonate groups having counter ions M selected from lithium and sodium (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 6, paragraph [0049]), wherein the ionomer is a fluoroionomer (page 2, paragraph [0017], page 4, paragraph [0035], page 7, paragraphs [0057], [0058], page 8, paragraph [0060]), and wherein the fluoroionomer is a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluorinated vinyl ether (page 2, paragraph [0017], page 4, paragraph [0035], page 7, paragraphs [0057], [0058], page 8, paragraph [0060]).
Kourtakis et al. do not teach wherein from 50 to 80% of the ionic groups are sulfonated groups. However, Kourtakis et al. teach wherein in some embodiments the neutralization ratio is about 20% to 80%, about 30% to 70%, about 40% to about 60% or about 50% (page 7, paragraph [0052]). The neutralization ratio may be selected for different properties, such as to promote conductivity in the ionomer, to promote the dispersibility of the halogen ionomer in a particular solvent or to promote miscibility with another polymer in blend (page 7, paragraph [0053]). Therefore, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of sulfonate groups in order to provide different properties, such as to promote conductivity in the ionomer, to promote the dispersibility of the halogen ionomer in a particular solvent or to promote miscibility with another polymer in blend (Kourtakis et al., page 7, paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer of Kourtakis et al. in the coating of Burger et al. in order to provide high discharge capacities and high coulombic efficiencies (Kourtakis et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Burger et al. teach wherein the polymeric substrate is porous (page 1, paragraph [0011], [0015], page 4, paragraphs [0074], [0075]), wherein the antistatic coating (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0014]) is at least partially impregnated within pores of the polymeric substrate (page 1, paragraph [0015], page 4, paragraphs [0074], [0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Burger et al. teach wherein the polymeric substrate is a perfluorinated polymer or a partially fluorinated polymer (page 2, paragraphs [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Burger et al. teach wherein the polymeric substrate is in tape form or sheet form having two main surfaces (page 2, paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0040] and wherein the antistatic coating is provided on one or on both surfaces of the polymeric substrate (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0014], page 2, paragraphs [0031], [0040], page 7, paragraphs [0074], [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Burger et al. teach wherein the article is a cable cover (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 5, paragraph [0106]).
Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677), in further view of Nakata et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0062275).
Burger et al. and Kourtakis et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Burger et al. teach wherein the polymeric substrate is in tape form or sheet form having two main surfaces (page 2, paragraph [0040]), wherein the antistatic coating is provided on one of the main surfaces (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0014], page 2, paragraph [0040], page 4, paragraphs [0074], [0076]).
Burger et al. fail to teach wherein an adhesive layer is provided on the opposing main surface. However, Nakata et al. teach an article (page 1, paragraphs [0001], [0016]) comprising an antistatic coating (page 1, paragraph [0001]) and an adhesive layer (page 4, paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive layer of Nakata et al. on the opposing main surface of Burger et al. in order to bond layers together (Nakata et al., page 4, paragraph [0059]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677), in further view of Braden et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0215327).
Burger et al. and Kourtakis et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 16, Burger et al. fail to teach wherein two cable covers are laminated together with an adhesive therebetween to form a cable jacket having an electrostatic coating. However, Braden et al. teach an article comprising a cable (page 1, paragraph [0018]), wherein two cable covers are laminated together with an adhesive therebetween to form a cable jacket having an electrostatic coating (page 1, paragraphs [0018], [0019], page 2, paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two cable coves in Burger et al. as that of Braden et al. in order to provide higher strength (Braden et al., page 2, paragraph [0027]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677), in further view of Yu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0022440).
Burger et al. and Kourtakis et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 17, Burger et al. fail to teach wherein the article further comprising a cable comprising an outermost electrically non-conductive layer and an antistatic coating thereon. However, Yu et al. teach an article (page 1, paragraph [0009]), further comprising a cable comprising a non-conductive layer (page 1, paragraph [0011]) and a low friction coating thereon (page 1, paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cable of Yu et al. with the article of Burger et al. in order to yield an article having a low friction surface (Yu et al., page 1, paragraph [0009]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677) and Yu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0022440), in further view of Braden et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0215327).
Burger et al., Kourtakis et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 18, Burger et al. fail to teach wherein the cable comprises at least one of a conductor, a conduit, or a channel. However, Braden et al. teach an article comprising a cable (page 1, paragraph [0018]), wherein the cable comprises a conductor (page 1, paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the conductor of Braden et al. with the cable of Burger et al. in order to carry power and/or signals along the cable (page 2, paragraph [0020]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0004333) in view of Kourtakis et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0181677), in further view of Hobson et al. (US Patent No. 5,527,569).
Burger et al. and Kourtakis et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 19, Burger et al. fail to teach wherein the polymeric substrate is ePTFE provided on a conductor. However, Hobson et al. teach an article (col. 2, lines 30-40) comprising ePTFE (col. 2, lines 30-40) provided on a conductor (col. 2, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ePTFE and conductor of Hobson et al. in the article of Burger et al. in order to provide both a high filtration efficiency and electrical conductivity (Hobson et al., col. 2, lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 20, Burger et al. fail to teach wherein the polymeric substrate is ePTFE provided on an arrangement comprising at least one of a wire, a conductor or conduit. However, Hobson et al. teach an article (col. 2, lines 30-40) comprising ePTFE (col. 2, lines 30-40) provided on an arrangement comprising a conductor (col. 2, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ePTFE and conductor of Hobson et al. in the article of Burger et al. in order to provide both a high filtration efficiency and electrical conductivity (Hobson et al., col. 2, lines 30-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 5/12/2026
Prosecution Insights