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 § 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heggedal et al (WO Pat Num 2021/045627, herein referred to as Heggedal) in view of Stagi et al (Pub Num 2006/0231283, herein referred to as Stagi). Heggedal discloses joint assembly (Fig 5) for joining two HV submarine cables of wet or semi-wet design (1a & 5, Page 2, lines 27-28), thereby improving the functioning as it may permit an array of power generation units to provide power with minimal disruption caused by repairs and maintenance (Page 31, lines 32-34) and permitting an array cable terminations to be safely stored in a subsea location while repair and/or maintenance work is taking place (Page 32, lines 1-3). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Heggedal discloses a joint assembly (Fig 5) comprising a water permeable enclosure (3) for receiving the two cables (1a & 5) at opposite ends of the enclosure (3, Fig 5), and at least one joint unit (not numbered) within said enclosure (3, Page 8, lines 24-31). With respect to claim 7, Heggedal discloses that the joint assembly (Fig 5) comprising at least three joint units for connecting corresponding phase conductors of each of the two cables ( i.e. three phases, Page 19, lines 25-26). With respect to claim 9, Heggedal discloses that the enclosure (3) comprises at least one aperture (26) to facilitate flooding (Page 29, lines 30-34). With respect to claim 11, Heggedal discloses a method for joining two high voltage submarine cables (1a & 5) of wet or semi-wet design (Page 2, lines 27-28), wherein the method comprising the steps of: a) providing the two cables (1a & 5, Page 8, lines 7-9), b) providing a joint assembly (Fig 5) comprising a water permeable enclosure (3) for receiving a connecting end section of each of the two cables (1a & 5) at opposite ends of the enclosure (3, Fig 5), and at least a joint unit (not numbered) arranged within the enclosure (3), wherein each joint unit (not numbered) for connecting corresponding phase conductors of each of the two cables (1a & 5, Page 19, lines 25-26, i.e. three phases) and c) joining the corresponding phase conductors of each of the two cables (1a & 5) using the at least a joint unit (not numbered, Page 8, lines 25-26, Figs 8 & 10). With respect to claim 12, Heggedal discloses the method wherein the joint assembly (Fig 5), wherein the joint assembly (Fig 5) comprises a water permeable enclosure (3) for receiving the two cables (1a & 5) at opposite ends of the enclosure (3, Fig 5), and at least one joint unit (not numbered) within said enclosure (3, Page 8, lines 24-31). With respect to claim 13, Heggedal discloses that the method further comprises a step of lowering the joint assembly (Fig 2) under water (Fig 2), after step c), such that the enclosure (3) is flooded with water (Page 29, lines 30-34). With respect to claim 14, Heggedal discloses a cable joint (Fig 5) comprising two HV submarine cables (1a & 5) and a joint assembly (Fig 5) comprises a water permeable enclosure (3) for receiving the two cables (1a & 5) at opposite ends of the enclosure (3, Fig 5), and at least one joint unit (not numbered) within said enclosure (3, Page 8, lines 24-31). With respect to claim 15, Heggedal discloses that the joint assembly (Fig 5) and the two HV cables (1a & 5) are saturated with water (Page 29, lines 30-34).
However, Heggedal doesn’t necessarily disclose the at least one joint unit being water permeable (claim 5).
Stagi teaches a joint assembly (Figs 1-8) that comprises a first cable having an impermeable layer and a second cable having an permeable layers, wherein the first and second cables terminations are protected and sealed off between the cable section from the environment (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Stagi teaches a joint assembly (Figs 1-2) comprising a water permeable enclosure (26) for receiving the two cables (30 & 40) at opposite ends of the enclosure (26), and at least one joint unit (24) comprising the two cables (30 & 40), both of which comprise permeable layers (40 and the inner and outer semiconductor materials surrounded the insulation, Paragraph 19-20), thereby making the joint unit (24) water impermeable (i.e. remediation fluid is diffused within the insulation (40) and the inner and outer semiconductor materials surrounded the insulation, Paragraph 37).
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 joint assembly of Heggedal to comprise the joint assembly and three phase conductor configuration as taught by Stagi because Stagi teaches a joint assembly (Figs 1-8) that comprises a first cable having an impermeable layer and a second cable having an permeable layers, wherein the first and second cables terminations are protected and sealed off between the cable section from the environment (abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heggedal (WO Pat Num 2021/045627) in view of Stagi (Pub Num 2006/0231283), as applied to claim 5 above (herein referred to as modified Heggedal), further in view of Iversen et al (Pub Num 2019/0165559, herein referred to as Iversen). Modified Heggedal discloses joint assembly (Fig 5) for joining two HV submarine cables of wet or semi-wet design (1a & 5, Page 2, lines 27-28), thereby improving the functioning as it may permit an array of power generation units to provide power with minimal disruption caused by repairs and maintenance (Page 31, lines 32-34) and permitting an array cable terminations to be safely stored in a subsea location while repair and/or maintenance work is taking place (Page 32, lines 1-3), as applied to claim 5 above.
However, modified Heggedal doesn’t necessarily disclose the enclosure comprising two bend guides located at the opposite ends of the enclosure (claim 8).
Iversen teaches a joint assembly (Figs 1-11) comprising a junction box for housing two high voltage cables (Paragraphs 2-3), wherein the cables are joined having minimum bending radiuses (Paragraph 16) and wherein the cables may be positioned in an advantageous laying patterns, thereby enabling the cables to be utilized in various applications and fields (Paragraph 21). With respect to claim 8, Iversen teaches a joint assembly (Figs 5-6) comprising a water enclosure (50) for receiving the two cables (top 55 & bottom 55), wherein the enclosure (50) comprises two bend guides (51 & 52, Paragraph 74).
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 joint assembly of modified Heggedal to comprise the joint assembly utilizing two bend guides configuration as taught by Iversen because Iversen teaches that such a configuration provides a joint assembly (Figs 1-11) comprising a junction box for housing two high voltage cables (Paragraphs 2-3), wherein the cables are joined having minimum bending radiuses (Paragraph 16) and wherein the cables may be positioned in an advantageous laying patterns, thereby enabling the cables to be utilized in various applications and fields (Paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heggedal (WO Pat Num 2021/045627) in view of Stagi (Pub Num 2006/0231283), as applied to claim 5 above (herein referred to as modified Heggedal), further in view of Boffi et al (Pat Num 2018/0019582, herein referred to as Boffi). Modified Heggedal discloses joint assembly (Fig 5) for joining two HV submarine cables of wet or semi-wet design (1a & 5, Page 2, lines 27-28), thereby improving the functioning as it may permit an array of power generation units to provide power with minimal disruption caused by repairs and maintenance (Page 31, lines 32-34) and permitting an array cable terminations to be safely stored in a subsea location while repair and/or maintenance work is taking place (Page 32, lines 1-3), as applied to claim 5 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 10 & 16, modified Heggedal discloses a joint assembly (Fig 5) comprising a water permeable enclosure (3) for receiving the two cables (1a & 5) at opposite ends of the enclosure (3, Fig 5 of Heggedal), and at least one joint unit (not numbered) within said enclosure (3, Page 8, lines 24-31), wherein at least one joint unit (24 of Stagi) comprising the two cables (30 & 40 of Stagi), comprising insulation layer (40) and conductor and shielding semiconducting layers (not shown, Paragraph 20), which may be made of XLPE (Paragraph 19), both of which comprise permeable layers (40 and the inner and outer semiconductor materials surrounded the insulation, Paragraph 19-20), thereby making the joint unit (24 of Stagi) water impermeable (i.e. remediation fluid is diffused within the insulation (40) and the inner and outer semiconductor materials surrounded the insulation, Paragraph 37).
However, modified Heggedal doesn’t necessarily disclose the joint units being pre-molded and comprising a tubular first layer made of a semiconducting material a second layer made of an insulating material surrounding the outer surface of the first layer and a third layer made of a semiconducting material surrounding the outer surface of the second layer wherein said first layer defines a tubular chamber suitable for surrounding an electrical joint between two cable conductors (claim 10), nor the interface between said third layer and said second layer has a curved profile (claim 17).
Boffi teaches a pre molded joint (Figs 1-2) for usage with high voltage direct current (HVAC) energy cables (Paragraph 1). With respect to claim 10 & 17, Boffi teaches a joint assembly (Fig 1) for joining two HV submarine cables (200), wherein the at least one joint unit comprises a pre-molded joint (Fig 1) comprising a tubular first layer (12) made of a semiconducting material (Paragraph 64), a second layer (13) made of an insulating material (Paragraph 64) surrounding the outer surface of the first layer (12, Fig 1) and a third layer (14) made of a semiconducting material (Paragraph 65) surrounding the outer surface of the second layer (13), wherein the first layer (12) defines a tubular chamber (Paragraph 64) suitable for surrounding an electrical joint (100) between two cable conductors (21a & 21b), wherein the first layer (12), second layer (13), and the third layer (14), may be made from XLPE (Paragraphs 56 & 63).
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 joint assembly of modified Heggedal to comprise the joint assembly to be a pre-molded joint as taught by Boffi because Boffi teaches that such a pre molded joint (Figs 1-2) is commonly utilized for usage with high voltage direct current (HVAC) energy cables (Paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Heggedal does not disclose an enclosure for receiving two cables at opposite ends therefore as required by claim 5 because the actual physical configuration of the junction box is shown in Figures 8 and 9, which illustrate a junction box housing containing internal connector components rather than cable to cable joint enclosures as claimed.
B) The junction box of Heggedal is not designed to permit free water ingress and exchange during operation.
C) Heggedal doesn’t necessarily disclose the at least one joint unit being water permeable.
D) Stagi teaches against being water permeable because Stagi teaches a sealed construction to isolate the internal conductors and there fluid reservoirs from moisture to prevent water treeing and therefore cannot be combined with Heggedal to rejection claim 5.
E) A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not have been motivated to combine Stagi with Heggedal in the manner proposed by the Examiner as doing so would negate the fundamental operating principles of each reference.
With respect to argument A, the examiner respectfully traverses. Heggedal clearly teaches a junction box, wherein multiple cables enter and are connected to each other by some kind of connection, which constitutes an electrical joint. Specifically, an electrical cable joint is a point where two or more electrical cables at opposite ends and being joined together to maintain the continuity of electrical current. Clearly, this is illustrated in Figures 8-10, which clearly shows connectors (unnumbered in Figure 8, but shown as 10a & 2b’s) connecting the cables (5, 1a & 1b) to form the cable joint (Fig 10). Therefore, clearly Heggedal discloses an enclosure for receiving two cables at opposite ends.
With respect to argument B, the examiner respectfully traverses. Heggedal also discloses the junction box being capable of permiting free water ingress and exchange during operation. Specifically, Page 29, lines 30-34, Heggedal states the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Heggedal clearly teaches the junction box permitting free water ingress through the apertures 26, thereby making the junction box a water permeable structure.
With respect to arguments C-E, the examiner respectfully traverses. It has been stated on the record that Heggedal doesn’t discloses that at least one joint unit being water permeable. However, the examiner has relied on Stagi for its teaching of a joint assembly (Figs 1-8) that comprises a first cable having an impermeable layer and a second cable having an permeable layers (abstract). Stagi teaches that such terminations of cable sections are known. Specifically, Stagi teaches the following in Paragraph 17:
PNG
media_image2.png
286
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clearly, Stagi teaches that joints being water permeable are known in the art.
Secondly, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Lastly, it has been held that patents are relevant for all they disclose. Specifically,
''The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe
as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are pad of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.'' In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 , 1332- 33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).”
The courts have been consistent that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 , 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. ''The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed”).
In light of the above, it is respectively submitted that 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 joint assembly of Heggedal to comprise the joint assembly and three phase conductor configuration as taught by Stagi because Stagi teaches a joint assembly (Figs 1-8) that comprises a first cable having an impermeable layer and a second cable having an permeable layers, wherein the first and second cables terminations are protected and sealed off between the cable section from the environment (abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights