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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saugrain et al. (US PG. Pub. 2017/0207003) in view of Rama (US Patent 3634606).
Regarding claim 1 – Saugrain teaches a submarine power cable (fig. 1 [paragraph 0025] Saugrain states, “An electricity transmission cable with mass-impregnated paper insulation, particularly intended for submarine use”), comprising: a conductor (1 [paragraph 0025] Saugrain states, “one conductor 1”), an insulation system (2) arranged around the conductor (1), the insulation system (2) having an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer arranged around the inner semiconducting layer, and an outer semiconducting layer arranged around the insulation layer ([paragraph 0025] Saugrain states, “an impregnated paper insulation system 2 consisting of internal semi-conductive papers, insulating papers and external semi-conductive papers”), a metallic water blocking layer (3 [paragraph 0025] Saurgain states, “metal layer 3”; meets the claimed structure of the “water blocking layer”) arranged concentrically with and around the insulation system (2), the metallic water blocking layer (3) having a longitudinal weld seam (8 [paragraph 0034] Saugrain states, “weld seam 8”).
Saugrain fails to teach a metallic tape arranged radially outside the metallic water blocking layer, wherein the metallic tape extends axially along and is bonded to the weld seam.
Rama teaches a metallic tape (figs. 1-2, 36 [column 2 lines 34-36] Rama states, “A narrow steel tape or "buttstrap" 36, having layers of tin 38 plated on its opposite faces”) arranged radially outside the metallic water blocking layer (26 [column 2 line 72] Rama states, “A tin-coated steel strip 26”), wherein the metallic tape (36) extends axially along and is bonded to the weld seam (42 [column 2 lines 34-40] Rama states, “A narrow steel tape or "buttstrap" 36, having layers of tin 38 plated on its opposite faces, and having a plurality of adjacent transverse corrugations 40 (FIG. 1), is centered over the seam 42 formed from the abutting edges 34 of the outer conductor 14. Corrugations 40 are complementary to the corrugations of the outer conductor 14 to ensure intimate contact between the buttstrap 36 and the outer conductor”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the submarine power cable having a metallic water blocking layer having a longitudinal weld seem as taught by Saugrain with the inclusion of a metallic tape arranged outside the metallic water blocking layer that extends axially along and bonded to the weld seem as taught by Rama because Rama states, “The soldered buttstrap design provides a smooth inner surface of the outer conductor at the seam and affords an effective seal against the ingress of moisture” [columns 3 & 4 lines 52-53 & 1-2].
Regarding claim 2 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic tape (Rama; figs. 1-2, 36) extends along the weld seam (42) along the entire axial length of the weld seam (figure 1 shows the entire length of the weld seam 42 being covered with the metallic tape 36).
Regarding claim 3 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic tape (Rama; figs. 1-2, 36) is bonded to the weld seam (42) by means of an adhesive or by means of solder (44 [column 2 line 41-42] Rama states, “solder joint 44”).
Regarding claim 5 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, comprising an extruded polymeric sheath (Saugrain; fig. 1, 4 [paragraph 0031] Saugrain states, “The lamination of the insulating material layer 4 is carried out by a thin layer of functionalized polymer, preferably polyolefin, comprising pendant polar groups, which is co-extruded with the insulating material layer 4”) arranged around the metallic water blocking layer (3).
Regarding claim 6 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 5, wherein the polymeric sheath (Rama; fig. 1-2, 22 [column 2 lines 21-22] Rama states, “a thermoplastic jacket 22 may be extruded over the coaxial cable 16”) is arranged in direct contact with the metallic tape (36).
Regarding claim 7 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic water blocking layer (Saugrain; fig. 1, 3) has a smooth outer surface (figure 1 shows the metallic water blocking layer 3 having a “smooth outer surface” with no roughness/space/corrugation shown).
Regarding claim 8 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic tape (Rama; fig. 2, 36 [column 2 lines 34-36] Rama states, “A narrow steel tape or "buttstrap" 36, having layers of tin 38 plated on its opposite faces”) is made of the same material (steel and tin) as the metallic water blocking layer ([column 2 lines 25-28] Rama states, “the outer conductor 14 is formed from a strip of laminated metal. The laminate comprises a steel strip 26, having layers of tin 28 plated on its opposite faces”).
Regarding claim 9 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metallic water blocking layer (Saugrain; fig. 1, 3) comprises one of a copper material ([paragraph 0033] Saugrain states, “metal layer 3 surrounding the impregnated paper layer consists of copper or aluminum”), or stainless steel.
Regarding claim 10 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1, wherein the submarine power cable (Saugrain; fig. 1 [paragraph 0025] Saugrain states, “An electricity transmission cable with mass-impregnated paper insulation, particularly intended for submarine use”) is a high voltage AC or DC submarine power cable ([paragraph 0035] Saugrain states, “Such a cable is intended for DC high voltages”).
Regarding claim 14 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein the metallic tape (Rama; figs. 1-2, 36) is bonded to the weld seam (42) by means of an adhesive or by means of solder (44 [column 2 line 41-42] Rama states, “solder joint 44”).
Regarding claim 15 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, comprising an extruded polymeric sheath (Saugrain; fig. 1, 4 [paragraph 0031] Saugrain states, “The lamination of the insulating material layer 4 is carried out by a thin layer of functionalized polymer, preferably polyolefin, comprising pendant polar groups, which is co-extruded with the insulating material layer 4”) arranged around the metallic water blocking layer (3).
Regarding claim 16 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein the metallic water blocking layer (Saugrain; fig. 1, 3) has a smooth outer surface (figure 1 shows the metallic water blocking layer 3 having a “smooth outer surface” with no roughness/space/corrugation shown).
Regarding claim 17 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein the metallic tape (Rama; fig. 2, 36 [column 2 lines 34-36] Rama states, “A narrow steel tape or "buttstrap" 36, having layers of tin 38 plated on its opposite faces”) is made of the same material (steel and tin) as the metallic water blocking layer ([column 2 lines 25-28] Rama states, “the outer conductor 14 is formed from a strip of laminated metal. The laminate comprises a steel strip 26, having layers of tin 28 plated on its opposite faces”).
Regarding claim 18 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein the metallic water blocking layer (Saugrain; fig. 1, 3) comprises one of a copper material ([paragraph 0033] Saugrain states, “metal layer 3 surrounding the impregnated paper layer consists of copper or aluminum”), or stainless steel.
Regarding claim 19 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein the submarine power cable (Saugrain; fig. 1 [paragraph 0025] Saugrain states, “An electricity transmission cable with mass-impregnated paper insulation, particularly intended for submarine use”) is a high voltage AC or DC submarine power cable ([paragraph 0035] Saugrain states, “Such a cable is intended for DC high voltages”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saugrain et al. in view of Rama as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hobson (US PG. Pub. 2016/0163418).
Regarding claim 4 – Saugrain in view of Rama teach the submarine power cable as claimed in claim 3, but fail to teach wherein the solder has a melting temperature of at most 200C.
Hobson teaches wherein the solder (fig. 2, 210) has a melting temperature of at most 200C ([paragraph 0022] Hobson states, “the solder 210 in layer 211 is a low temperature solder, and has melting temperatures between about 50 degrees Celsius to about 183 degrees Celsius”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the submarine power cable having the solder between the metallic tape and the weld seem as taught by Saugrain in view of Rama with the solder having a melting temperature of at most 200C as taught by Hobson because Hobson states, “solder having a melting temperature than can be achieved through use of the extruder 116 alone can be implemented” [paragraph 0022]. Having low temperature solder allows bonding to occur without the need for additional heat steps required in high temperature solder materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 14-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cristofani et al. (US PG. Pub. 2021/0210253) discloses a high voltage power cable with fatigue-resistant water barrier.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights