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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Examiner notes that Figure 1 is described in the Background section of the specification, which is a section of the specification that describes the current state of the art. Additionally, the second paragraph of the Background section recites “Recently, a new technology using direct current and fibre optic (DCFO or DC/FO) cables to provide increased power and signals over longer subsea distances has been suggested. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the setup.” Examiner takes the position that the term “recently” indicates that the technology has been used for at least a short time in the past, which makes the technology known in the art and, therefore, is prior art.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 - 11 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the DCFO cable" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the “at least one direct current and fiber optic (DCFO) cable” as recited in line 2 of claim 1 “the DCFO cable” refers.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 - 3, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (DC/FO, A Lean and Powerful DC Subsea Control Infrastructure) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0381594), Feros et al. (WO 2016145494), and Featherstone (WO 2008/139190).
Regarding claim 1, Michel discloses a method of installing a subsea cable bundle comprising an umbilical and at least one direct current and fibre optic (DCFO) cable (DC/FO) outside of the umbilical, the method comprising: laying the cable bundle on a seafloor (Figs. 6 and 7; pages 7 - 8). Examiner takes the position that, as shown in Fig. 7 below, Michel teaches the DC/FO cable as being a standalone cable located outside of the umbilical.
PNG
media_image1.png
105
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Michel fails to disclose the umbilical comprises a plurality of tubulars for providing fluid lines to a subsea structure, wherein the plurality of tubulars is encased in an outer layer and wherein the DCFO cable is attached to an outside of the outer layer of the umbilical; connecting a first end of the cable bundle to a pulling head; lowering the first end of the cable bundle into a sea; connecting the pulling head to a winch cable of a winch, the winch being located on a platform and the winch cable extending from the platform into the sea through a J-tube; using the winch to pull the first end of the cable bundle up to the platform through the J- tube; and at a target location, at or close to a subsea structure, detaching the at least one DCFO from the umbilical and connecting a second end of the at least one DCFO cable and a second end of the umbilical to the subsea structure. Kim teaches the umbilical (106) comprises a plurality of tubulars (fluid based utility line tubes 200B and flow line tubes 200A) for providing fluid lines to a subsea structure and fiber optic cables, wherein the plurality of tubulars is encased in an outer layer (outer sheath 204) (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the umbilical comprising a plurality of cables to include both fiber optic cables and a plurality of tubulars and to encase the cables and tubulars in an outer sheath as taught by Kim to increase the variety of functions which can be performed by the umbilical, including providing conduits for transporting service fluids and cables for transmitting data and power to a subsea structure, while protecting the cables and tubulars from corrosion and damage caused by collisions with other subsea objects. Kim fails to teach wherein the DCFO cable is attached to an outside of the outer layer of the umbilical; connecting a first end of the cable bundle to a pulling head; lowering the first end of the cable bundle into a sea; connecting the pulling head to a winch cable of a winch, the winch being located on a platform and the winch cable extending from the platform into the sea through a J-tube; using the winch to pull the first end of the cable bundle up to the platform through the J- tube; and at a target location, at or close to a subsea structure, detaching the at least one DCFO from the umbilical and connecting a second end of the at least one DCFO cable and a second end of the umbilical to the subsea structure. Feros teaches a cable (power cable 116) attached (via straps 722) to an outside of an umbilical (communication cable 114) (Fig. 7; abstract; paragraphs 0033 - 0036, 0059, and 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the straps as taught by Feros to attach the at least one DCFO cable to the umbilical thereby preventing damage caused to the at least one DCFO cable and/or the umbilical caused by relative movement therebetween. Feros fails to teach connecting a first end of the cable bundle to a pulling head; lowering the first end of the cable bundle into a sea; connecting the pulling head to a winch cable of a winch, the winch being located on a platform and the winch cable extending from the platform into the sea through a J-tube; using the winch to pull the first end of the cable bundle up to the platform through the J- tube; and at a target location, at or close to a subsea structure, detaching the at least one DCFO from the umbilical and connecting a second end of the at least one DCFO cable and a second end of the umbilical to the subsea structure (subsea distribution unit, SDU). Featherstone teaches connecting a first end of a cable (100) to a pulling head (pull-in device 2); lowering the first end of the cable into a sea; connecting the pulling head (2) to a winch cable (deployment cable 50) of a winch, the winch (not shown) being located on a platform (access platform, not shown, on support structure 500) and the winch cable extending from the platform into the sea through a J-tube (guide conduit 10; page 11 teaches a guide conduit may comprise an I-tube or a J-tube); and using the winch to pull the first end of the cable bundle up to the platform through the J- tube (Figs. 5 - 7; pages 11 and 27 - 30). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the steps of connecting a first end of the cable bundle to a pulling head; lowering the first end of the cable bundle into a sea; connecting the pulling head to a winch cable of a winch, the winch being located on a platform and the winch cable extending from the platform into the sea through a J-tube; and using the winch to pull the first end of the cable bundle up to the platform through the J- tube as taught by Featherstone to provide for the deployment of a cable bundle from a floating cable transport vessel to a seafloor for connection to a subsea structure at an installation site. Featherstone fails to teach at a target location, at or close to a subsea structure, detaching the at least one DCFO from the umbilical and connecting a second end of the at least one DCFO cable and a second end of the umbilical to the subsea structure. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the step of at a target location, at or close to a subsea structure, detaching the at least one DCFO from the umbilical and connecting a second end of the at least one DCFO cable and a second end of the umbilical to the subsea structure would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except explicitly teaching the target location is up to 3 km from the subsea structure. Examiner takes the position that the distance between the target location and the subsea structure lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except two of said DCFO cables. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have duplicated the DCFO cable as taught by Michel to include two DCFO cables as a design consideration within the skill of the art to increase the amount and variety of information that can be communicated using the cable bundle. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Michel further discloses a subsea structure is a well template (Fig. 6; page 7).
Regarding claim 10, Michel fails to explicitly disclose said step of laying comprises laying the cable bundle from a laying vessel. Featherstone teaches said step of laying comprises laying the cable (100) from a laying vessel (cable lay vessel 51) (Figs. 5 - 7; page 27). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of laying comprises laying the cable from a laying vessel as taught by Featherstone to provide for the deployment of a cable bundle from a floating cable transport vessel to a seafloor for connection to a subsea structure at an installation site.
Regarding claim 11, Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except laying at least 2 km of the cable bundle on the seafloor. Examiner takes the position that the length of the cable bundle that is laid on the seafloor lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Kim et al., Feros et al., and Featherstone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wooters (US 6,538,198). Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the umbilical is a static umbilical. Kangas teaches a static umbilical (14) (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 27 - 28; col. 3, lines 25 - 27) designed for stationary deployment in which the umbilical is not subjected to dynamic stresses caused by ocean currents and wave action. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the umbilical as disclosed above with the static umbilical as taught by Wooters because the cable bundle is to be installed on a seafloor and an umbilical installed on a seafloor represents a stationary deployment that would not be subjected to dynamic stresses caused by ocean currents and wave action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Kim et al., Feros et al., and Featherstone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madden (US 2012/0234597). Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except said step of connecting the first end of the cable bundle to the pulling head comprises hang-off of at least the umbilical within the pulling head. Madden teaches hang-off of at least the umbilical within the pulling head (umbilical pulling-head/hang-off device) (paragraph 0033). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the use of the hang-off device as taught by Madden to provide a means of connecting the cable bundle to the pulling head.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Kim et al., Feros et al., and Featherstone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Margai (US 2018/0034250). Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherston discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the step of connecting the first end of the cable bundle to the pulling head comprises using friction clamps. Margai teaches the step of connecting comprises using friction clamps (sleeve 7, inner unit 2) to connect a cable (10) to a pulling head (pulling device 1) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0023 - 0031). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the use of friction clamps as taught by Margai to provide a means of connecting the cable bundle to the pulling head.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Kim et al., Feros et al., and Featherstone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engli (US 5,765,834).
Regarding claim 8, Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except pulling comprises pulling the cable bundle through a seal at a lower end of the J- tube. Engli teaches pulling a cable or umbilical (elongated body 1) through a seal (sealing part 21) at a lower end (aperture 7) of a J-tube (8) (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 1, lines 47 - 61; col. 2, line 25 - col. 3, line 16) to form a fluid-tight seal between the cable and the J-tube, thereby preventing corrosion of the cable within the J-tube by preventing fluid from entering the J-tube. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the seal as taught by Engli to form a fluid-tight seal between the cable bundle and the J-tube, thereby preventing corrosion of the cable bundle within the J- tube by preventing fluid from entering the J-tube.
Regarding claim 9, Michel in view of Kim, Feros, and Featherstone discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except after pulling the first end of the cable bundle, activating the seal to seal the lower end of the J-tube against the umbilical and against the at least one DCFO cable. Engli teaches after pulling the first end of the cable or umbilical (1), activating (via tensioning rods 22 and nuts 16) the seal (21) to seal the lower end (7) of the J-tube (8) against the cable or umbilical (1) (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 1, lines 47 - 61; col. 2, line 25 - col. 3, line 16) to form a fluid-tight seal between the cable and the J-tube, thereby preventing corrosion of the cable within the J-tube by preventing fluid from entering the J-tube. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the operation of the seal as taught by Engli to form a fluid- tight seal between the cable bundle and the J-tube after pulling the first end of the cable bundle, thereby preventing corrosion of the cable bundle within the J-tube by preventing fluid from entering the J-tube.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Kim et al. and Feros et al.
Regarding claim 12, Michel discloses a cable bundle comprising: an umbilical comprising a plurality of cables for providing communication with a subsea structure (subsea distribution unit, SDU); and at least one direct current and fibre optic (DCFO) cable (DC/FO) outside of the umbilical (Figs. 6 and 7; pages 7 - 8). Michel fails to disclose the umbilical comprises a plurality of tubulars for providing fluid lines to a subsea structure, wherein the plurality of tubulars are encased by an outer layer; and the at least one DCFO cable is attached to an outside of the outer layer. Kim teaches the umbilical (106) comprises a plurality of tubulars (fluid based utility line tubes 200B and flow line tubes 200A) for providing fluid lines to a subsea structure and fiber optic cables, wherein the plurality of tubulars is encased in an outer layer (outer sheath 204) (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the umbilical comprising a plurality of cables to include both fiber optic cables and a plurality of tubulars and to encase the cables and tubulars in an outer sheath as taught by Kim to increase the variety of functions which can be performed by the umbilical, including providing conduits for transporting service fluids and cables for transmitting data and power to a subsea structure, while protecting the cables and tubulars from corrosion and damage caused by collisions with other subsea objects. Kim fails to teach the at least one DCFO cable is attached to an outside of the outer layer. Feros teaches a cable (power cable 116) attached (via straps 722) to an outside of an umbilical (communication cable 114) (Fig. 7; abstract; paragraphs 0033 - 0036, 0059, and 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the straps as taught by Feros to attach the at least one DCFO cable to the outer layer of the umbilical thereby preventing damage to the at least one DCFO cable and/or the umbilical caused by relative movement therebetween.
Regarding claim 13, Michel in view of Kim and Feros discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except two of said DCFO cables. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have duplicated the DCFO cable as taught by Michel to include two DCFO cables as a design consideration within the skill of the art to increase the amount and variety of information that can be communicated using the cable bundle. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, Michel further discloses a cable bundle has a length greater than 2 km (up to 350 km) (pages 5 and 6). Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. in view of Feros et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wooters. Michel in view of Feros discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the umbilical is a static umbilical. Kangas teaches a static umbilical (14) (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 27 - 28; col. 3, lines 25 - 27) designed for stationary deployment in which the umbilical is not subjected to dynamic stresses caused by ocean currents and wave action. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the umbilical as disclosed above with the static umbilical as taught by Wooters because the cable bundle is to be installed on a seafloor and an umbilical installed on a seafloor represents a stationary deployment that would not be subjected to dynamic stresses caused by ocean currents and wave action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fig. 1 is not disclosed as being Prior Art because the specification discloses “Recently, a new technology using direct current and fibre optic (DCFO or DC/FO) cables to provide increased power and signals over longer subsea distances has been suggested”. Examiner replies that Figure 1 is described in the Background section of the specification, which is a section of the specification that describes the current state of the art. Additionally, the second paragraph of the Background section recites “Recently, a new technology using direct current and fibre optic (DCFO or DC/FO) cables to provide increased power and signals over longer subsea distances has been suggested. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the setup.” Examiner takes the position that the term “recently” indicates that the technology has been used for at least a short time in the past, which makes the technology known in the art and, therefore, is prior art. Assuming arguendo that Fig. 1 illustrates the claimed invention of the present application, Fig. 1 should be described in the “Summary” and “Detailed description” sections of the specification.
Applicant argues that Fig. 7 of Michel depicts the DCFO cable directly integrated in the umbilical. Examiner replies that as shown in Fig. 7 below, Michel teaches the DC/FO cable as being a standalone cable located outside of the umbilical.
PNG
media_image2.png
164
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/9/2026