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 .
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 10 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 10, line 2, “an additive” is unclear to how this relates to “at least one other additive” cited in claim 1.
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 1-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (5889087).
Hayashi et al. discloses an insulation composition for an electrical cable, the insulation composition comprising: a base resin; a flame retardant (component D); a cross-linking agent (col. 7 lines 15-20); and at least one other additive (col. 6 line 50), wherein the base resin comprises: 30 to 60 wt% of a polar ethylene-based copolymer (component A), 20 to 50 wt% of ethylene alpha-olefin (component B), and 10 to 20 wt% of ethylene-vinyl acetate modified with maleic anhydride (component C) (re-claims 1 and 16).
Hayashi et al. also discloses that the polar ethylene-based copolymer comprises an ethylene compolymer containing 15 to 50 wt% of a polar monomer (col. 2 lines 12-13) (re-claim 2); the polar ethylene-based copolymer comprises EEA or EVA (col. 2, line 10) (re-claim 3); the ethylene alpha-olefin is 1-butene or 1-hexene (col. 2 line 40) (re-claim 4); the flame retardant comprises a metal hydroxide (col. 5 line 61) (re-claims 5 and 6); the flame retardant is contained in an amount of 50 to 150 parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of the base resin (col. 1 lines 60-61) (re-claim 7); the cross-linking agent is contained in an amount of 1 to 5 parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of the base resin (col. 7 lines 18-20) (re-claims 8 and 9); an antioxidant comprises a phenol-based and an amine-based (col. 6 line 66 and col. 7 line 11) as an additive (re-claims 10, 11, and 12); the composition further comprises a slip agent (silicone oil, component E) (re-claim 13); the base resin comprises 15-50 parts per hundred of the polar ethylene-based copolymer, 20-50 parts per hundred of the ethylene alpha-olefin, and 10-20 parts per hundred of the ethylene-vinyl acetate modified with maleic anhydride, the flame retardant comprises 50-100 parts per hundred of inorganic flame retardant (see abstract), a content of the cross-linking agent in the insulation composition is 1-10 parts per hundred (col. 7 lines 18-20), and further comprising: 2-5 parts per hundred of an antioxidant (col. 7 lines 12-14) and 1-5 parts per hundred of a slip agent (see abstract, component E) (re-claim 15); an electrical cable comprising an electrical conductor wire and a sheath that surrounds the conductor wire (see abstract), wherein the sheath is made from the insulation composition cited in claim 1 (re-claim 16).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. in view of Sultan et al. (8618207).
Hayashi et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the slip agent being silicone gum. Sultan et al. discloses a flame retardant polymer composition. Sultan et al. discloses that silicone gum is known in the art for being used in composition comprising ethylene acrylate or acetate and inorganic filler (col. 1 lines 29-32). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use silicone gum, instead of silicone oil, in the composition of Hayashi et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting composition since silicone gum is known in the art for being used in said composition.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. and Clark et al. (7696437).
Hayashi et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 16, except for the sheath having a thickness less than 0.8 mm and the cable having an outer diameter of 4.5 or less. Clark et al. discloses a cable comprising a sheath (37) surrounding a conductor wire (35), wherein the sheath has a thickness less than 0.8 mm (col. 10 lines 37-38, 0.03 in. = 0.762 mm), and wherein the outer diameter of the cable being 4.5 mm or less (col. 10 lines 35-36, conductor diameter of a 18 AWG = 1.024 mm; therefore the outer diameter of the cable = the diameter of the conductor 35 + the thickness of sheath 37 = 1.024 + 0.762 + 0.762 = 2.548 < 4.5 mm). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to respectively provide the conductor wire and the cable of Hayashi et al. with thickness and outer diameter as taught by Clark et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al.
Hayashi et al. discloses an electrical cable comprising features as cited in claim 19, see the 102 rejection above with respect to claims 1 and 16.
Hayashi et al. does not disclose the cable being connected to a battery of a vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect the cable of Hayashi et al. to a battery of vehicle to meet the specific use of the same since the cable of Hayashi et al. has improved properties, such as flame retardancy (col. 1 lines 30-32) and connecting an electrical cable to a battery of a vehicle is known in the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. and Clark et al.
Claim 20 additionally recites the sheath having a thickness less than 0.8 mm and the cable having an outer diameter of 4.5 or less. Clark et al. discloses a cable comprising a sheath (37) surrounding a conductor wire (35), wherein the sheath has a thickness less than 0.8 mm (col. 10 lines 37-38, 0.03 in. = 0.762 mm), and wherein the outer diameter of the cable being 4.5 mm or less (col. 10 lines 35-36, conductor diameter of a 18 AWG = 1.024 mm; therefore the outer diameter of the cable = the diameter of the conductor 35 + the thickness of sheath 37 = 1.024 + 0.762 + 0.762 = 2.548 < 4.5 mm). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to respectively provide the conductor wire and the cable of Hayashi et al. with thickness and outer diameter as taught by Clark 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
Prosecution Insights