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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 10/30/2023, claims 1-6 are pending.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2022097800A1, CITED IN 10/30/2023 IDS, English Translation is attached) in view of Sheridan (US 3564102 A) and further in view of Nordebo (US 20100010761 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses
A device (100, see fig.1) or heating (see page 3, lines 47-48: “power is applied to the primary coil 24 through the thermal power supply unit 30 in order to apply heat to the test cable 10 on the secondary side”) and simultaneously applying a high voltage to an electric cable (see page 2, lines 31-33: “The device for accelerated deterioration of HVDC power cable according to the present invention deteriorates the cable by simultaneously applying electrical stress, mechanical stress, and thermoelectric stress with one cable installation”. See page 1, lines 49-50: “a direct current application module for providing a direct current high voltage to apply electrical stress to the test cable”), said device (100, see fig.1) comprising:
said electric cable (10, see fig.1);
an inductive transformer (21, see fig.3 and page 3, lines 50-52) connected to said electric cable (10, see fig.3), designed to heat said electric cable 10, see fig.1)
a high-voltage 40, see fig.1) connected between said electric cable (10, see fig.1) and ground (see fig.2), designed to apply a predetermined voltage of between 100 kV and 300 kV to said electric cable (See page 4, lines 7-8: “It is preferable that the DC power generated and applied by the DC application module 40 is set to a maximum of 120 kV”).
Kim discloses the inductive transformer 21 connected to said electric cable 10 to heat the cable 10 and the direct current application module 40 is configured to perform a function of applying a high voltage direct current to the copper wire unit 16 of the test cable 10 .
However, Kim does not expressly disclose
the inductive transformer designed to heat said electric cable to a first predetermined temperature; and
a high-voltage transformer.
However, Sheridan discloses a wire heating apparatus, comprising:
an inductive transformer designed to heat said electric cable to a first predetermined temperature (see abstract: “A number of heating elements are enclosed in the mass surrounding the opening and are energized by a pair of transformers to maintain a predetermined temperature range”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inductive transformer of Kim to apply the teachings of Sheridan so as the “inductive transformer designed to heat said electric cable to a first predetermined temperature” as claimed. Doing so ensures that each test specimen experiences the same thermal stress. This reduces variability and makes comparisons between cable designs more reliable.
Kim in view of Sheridan discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on the high-voltage transformer.
However, Nordebo discloses a method and a device for monitoring a system such as a cable, comprising:
a high-voltage transformer (3 , see fig.1) connected between said electric cable (1, see fig.1) and ground (see fig.1) and designed to apply a predetermined voltage of between 100 kV and 300 kV to said electric cable (see para.0021: “ transmission line power cable 1 is used in a transmission grid sub-system to connect, via first and second transformers 3, 5 a high-voltage (e.g. 100 kV)”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the high-voltage transformer of Nordebo for the direct current application module 40 in the combo Kim and Sheridan since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of applying the predetermined voltage to said electric cable.
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except said first predetermined temperature is between 30ºC and 110ºC.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said first predetermined temperature of the combo Kim, Sheridan and Nordebo to be “between 30ºC and 110ºC” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the combo Kim, Sheridan and Nordebo teaches a certain range of said first predetermined temperature and varying said first predetermined temperature of the combo Kim, Sheridan and Nordebo to “between 30ºC and 110ºC” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so keeps the cable at a substantially uniform, predetermined temperature. This reduces hot spots and temperature variations along the cable.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Sheridan and Nordebo further discloses
A method for heating and simultaneously applying a high voltage to an electric cable by way of a device according to claim 1 (See rejections of claim 1), wherein said method comprises the following steps:
heating said electric cable (10, see fig.1) to said first predetermined temperature (predetermined temperature taught by of Sheridan) by way of said inductive transformer (21, see fig.3 and page 3, lines 50-52);
simultaneously applying said predetermined voltage of between 100 kV and 300 kV to said electric cable by way of said high-voltage transformer (See page 4, lines 7-8 of Kim: “It is preferable that the DC power generated and applied by the DC application module 40 is set to a maximum of 120 kV” and see rejection of claim 1, the high-voltage transformer of Nordebo is included in the modification ).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sheridan/ Nordebo as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Edwards US2942181A
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except said device further comprises a tank containing water, in which said electric cable is at least partially immersed.
Edwards discloses an Apparatus for testing cable, comprising:
said device further comprises a tank (14, see fig.1) containing water (18, see fig.1), in which said electric cable (4) is at least partially immersed (See fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combo Kim, Sheridan and Nordebo to add the “tank containing water, in which said electric cable is at least partially immersed” as taught by Edwards. Doing so provides more realistic evaluation of cable performance. This also reduces hot spots and temperature variations along the cable.
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sheridan/ Nordebo/ Edwards as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Hazenfield US 20180286536 A1
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the water is heated to a second predetermined temperature.
Hazenfield discloses an electric wire immersed in water, comprising:
the water is heated to a second predetermined temperature (See para.0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water in Kim, Sheridan and Nordebo to be “heated to a second predetermined temperature” as taught by Hazenfield. Doing so keeps the cable at a substantially uniform, predetermined temperature. This also reduces hot spots and temperature variations along the cable.
Regarding claim 4, the modification discloses the claimed set forth, except said second predetermined temperature is equal to said first predetermined temperature.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify said first and second predetermined temperatures of the combo Kim, Sheridan, Nordebo and Hazenfield to have “said second predetermined temperature is equal to said first predetermined temperature” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144). Doing so provides stable thermal conditions from one test to another, making lifetime predictions more reliable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20130175068A1: The process includes heating a polymeric composition composed of a low density polyethylene (LDPE) and a minority amount of a high density polyethylene (HDPE). The polymeric composition is heated to at least the melting temperature of the HDPE. The process includes control-cooling the heated polymeric composition at a cooling rate from 0.1° C./min to 20° C./min, and forming a polymeric composition. The control-cooled polymeric composition has a unique morphology which improves breakdown strength. Also provided is a coated conductor with an insulating layer composed of the polymeric composition with the unique morphology. The insulating layer exhibits improved breakdown strength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights