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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 8, “wherein the” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4-10, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (6472614) in view of Bornes (GB 2553846).
Dupont et al. discloses a subsea umbilical (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of longitudinal strength steel members (9, 10), and a central core (1) for transporting fluid or transmitting electrical power, the plurality of longitudinal strength steel members comprising a first group of first strength members (10) having solid cross sections angularly spaced and arranged around the central core, and a second group of second strength members (9) having solid cross sections and angularly arranged and spaced around the central core, wherein the first strength members have diameters larger than diameters of the second strength member, wherein the first strength member are coated with a coating (11), and wherein the subsea umbilical is not armored for mechanical strength (col. 3, lines 31-33) (re-claim 1). Dupont et al. also discloses that the longitudinal strength steel members are steel rods or wires (re-claim 2); the longitudinal strength steel members are formed from carbon steel (col. 4, line 1) (re-claim 4).
Dupont et al. does not disclose the coating being a semi-conductive coating (re-claim 1). Bornes discloses an umbilical comprising a steel strength member (4) having a semi-conductive coating (10) thereon. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the coating of Dupont et al. to be a semi-conductive coating to form a protection against sea water corrosion as taught by Bornes, page 7, last two lines.
Re-claims 5-10, Dupont et al., as modified, discloses that the semi-conductive coating is formed from an organic semi-conductive material (see Bornes) (re-claim 5), wherein the organic semi-conductive material comprises polyethylene or polypropylene doped with a suitable conducting material (Bornes, page 4) (re-claim 6), and wherein the organic material is doped with a carbon material (Bornes, page 5) (re-claim 7); the coating material has a resistivity in the range of 0.01 - 100 Ωm or 0.1 - 2.0 Ωm (Bornes, page 5) (re-claims 8-9); and the umbilical further comprises a grounding conductor to provide the semi-conductive coating with a grounding path (Bornes, page 5) (re-claim 10).
Re-claims 13-15, the modified umbilical of Dupont et al. is a power riser or a dynamic power cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Re-claims 17-19, the semi-conductive coating in the modified umbilical of Dupont et al. can be groundable axially to seawater via the at least one of the strength members, which is tie-able to earth at one of both ends of the umbilical, since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogg (2012/0241040) in view of Bornes.
Fogg discloses a power riser subsea umbilical comprising power conductors, each power conductor having power cables (11) therein, and a plurality of longitudinal strength members, a first group (16) of the strength members being within the power conductors, and a second group (17a) of the strength members being outside the power conductors, wherein each strength member comprises a plurality of adjacently positioned steel strands (Fig. 2), and wherein the subsea umbilical is not armoured for mechanical strength ([0002], when applicable) (re-claim 20).
Fogg does not disclose at least one of the strength members having a semiconductive coating surrounding the steel strands thereof (re-claim 20).
Bornes discloses an umbilical comprising steel strength members (4) each having a semi-conductive coating (10) thereon (re-claims 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide each strength member of Fogg with a semi-conductive coating to form a protection against sea water corrosion as taught by Bornes, page 7, last two lines.
Re-claim 22, Fogg discloses the umbilical further comprising polymeric fillers (15) located between spaced longitudinal strength members of the second group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot.
Applicant argues that while Dupont discloses steel rods 10 coated with a coating 11 to prevent corrosion, there is no indication that Dupont suggests a semiconductive coating, which is rather unconventional coating and not generally considered a material suitable for environment protection. 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). Bornes, page 7, last two lines, does teach such semiconductive coating providing protection against sea water corrosion.
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