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.
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 1-3, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copete Cano et al. (2019/0164666) in view of Yaworski et al. (9780549) and Perez-Lazcano et al. (10985538).
Copete Cano et al. discloses an HVDC power cable joint assembly ([0002]) for joining more than two HVDC power cables, comprising a connection body (Fig. 7) having a multi-branch conductor having at least two branches (97, 98) and a stem (99); a multi-branch conductor insulation system including a connection body inner semiconducting layer (69) arranged radially outside of the multi-branch conductor, a connection body insulation layer (70) arranged radially outside the connection body inner semiconducting layer, a connection body outer semiconducting layer (71) arranged radially outside the connection body insulation layer; N power cables, wherein N is the number of branches plus one, each power cable being an HVDC power cable and having a conductor and a power cable insulation system (Fig. 2) surrounding the conductor; and N power cable joints (77-79), each power cable joint connecting one of the at least two branches or the stem to a respective power cable of said N power cables, wherein each power cable joint includes a conductor joint between said one of the at least two branches or the stem and the conductor of the respective power cable of the N power cables (re-claim 1).
Copete Cano et al. does not disclose a joint insulation system arranged around the conductor joint, wherein the joint insulation system includes a deflector layer, a field grading layer, a joint insulation layer, and a joint insulation system outer semiconducting layer; an outer cover housing the joint insulation system; and an external metal casing accommodating the connection body (re-claim 1).
Yaworski et al. (Figs 8-9) discloses a power cable joint comprising a conductor joint (60); a joint insulation system arranged around the conductor joint, wherein the joint insulation system includes a deflector layer (conductive layer 360), a field grading layer (350), a joint insulation layer (332), and a joint insulation system outer semiconducting layer (338); and an outer cover (140, labeled in Fig. 2) housing the joint insulation system. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the joint insulation system taught by Yaworski et al. in the joint assembly of Copete Cano et al. to further protect the joints from surrounding environment, joint insulation system having multiple layers.
Perez-Lazcano et al. discloses a cable joint assembly comprising an external metal casing (109) accommodating a connection body (107). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the joint assembly of Copete Cano et al. with an external metal casing accommodating the connection body as taught by Perez-Lazcano et al. to provide a shielding means for the joints.
Re-claims 2 and 20, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use steel or stainless steel for the metal casing (of Perez-Lazcano) in the modified joint assembly of Copete Cano since steel or stainless steel is known for its corrosion-resistance.
Re-claims 3 and 16, Copete Cano et al., as modified, discloses the metal casing accommodating the power cable joints (see Perez-Lazcano).
Re-claim 8, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, prefabricated, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Re-claim 9, Copete Cano et al., as modified, discloses the deflector layer (360 of Yaworski) being arranged between the conductor joint and the field grading layer (350 of Yaworski); the joint insulation layers (332) being arranged radially outside the field grading layers; the joint insulation system outer semiconducting layer (338) being arranged radially outside the joint insulation layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are allowed.
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that on page 7, the 09/08/2025 Office Action (OA) asserts:
“Applicant argues that Yaworski does not teach or suggest a field grading layer in the context of an HVDC cable assembly. Examiner would disagree. Claimed invention broadly calls for a field grading layer, no further feature of the field layer being claimed; and Yaworski does teach a field grading layer (stress control layer) as claimed."
Applicant, therefore, amended claim 1 to further highlight that the various claimed elements are in the context of an HVDC cable assembly and HVDC power cables.
Examiner would like to clarify that in the 09/08/2025 OA, examiner states that “claimed invention broadly calls for a field grading layer, no further feature of the field layer being claimed; and Yaworski does teach a field grading layer (stress control layer) as claimed." By amending claim 1 to recite HVDC power cables in the system would not help to advance the prosecution. Copete Cano et al. discloses HVDC power cables in the system.
Applicant argues that the mastic material disclosed in Yaworski will not function as a field grading material in HVDC applications in steady state, only in transient situations; Yaworski lacks any indication that the mastic layer 350 is a layer which helps to distribute the electric field around the splice connection 15; and that in col. 4, lines 50-51, Yaworski mentions that layer 150 is a high electric permittivity mastic, which may have field grading properties in AC applications, but does not have field grading properties in DC applications.
Examiner would disagree. First, applicant has not provided any proof/evident to support the argument that the mastic material disclosed in Yaworski will not function as a field grading material in HVDC applications in steady state, only in transient situations. Second, Yaworski, col. 10, lines 38-51, does indicate the mastic layer (150 or 350) “provides electrical stress control in the area over the central connector 60, the insulating interfaces of the cable insulation 44, 54, and the cutback sections of the semiconductor layers 45, 55…layer 150 extending the entire length of the splice body 130…and the entire electrical interface can thus provide increased electrical stress control, interfacial dielectric strength, and electrical reliability.” Yaworski, in fact, does mention high voltage joint, col. 10, line 6. Third, in col. 4, lines 50-51, there is no disclosure in Yaworski stating that layer 150 may have field grading properties in AC applications, but does not have field grading properties in DC applications, as argued by the applicant.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not turn to Yaworski to incorporate the mastic layer 150/350 in any DC cable system. Examiner would disagree. It has been held that 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). Yaworski, col. 10 line 6, does mention high voltage joint.
Applicant argues that neither Copete Cano nor Perez-Lazcano appears to disclose an HVDC system with HVDC power cables. Examiner would disagree because Copete Cano does disclose HVDC system ([0002]).
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