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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “the rigid joint including three joint sleeves, each connecting the insulation system of a respective power core with the insulation system of one of the single core submarine power cables” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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, 4-7, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (5667008) in view of Cho et al. (2023/0133613).
Moore discloses a power cable system comprising a three-core power cable comprising three power cores (10a, 11a, 12a) each including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor; three single-core power cables (10, 11, 12) each including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor; and a rigid joint (200, Fig. 16) connecting each power core to a respective one of the single-core power cables, the rigid joint including three joint sleeves (206, Fig. 16), each connecting the insulation system of a respective power core with the insulation system of one of the single-core cables (re-claim 1).
Moore does not disclose the three power cores being stranded; each insulation system of the power cores including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising a first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer; each insulation system of the three single-core power cables including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising the first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Moore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to strand the three cores in the three-core cable of Moore together to improve the cable flexibility and durability against bending and twisting since a cable comprising stranded cores is known in the art.
Cho et al. discloses a high voltage power cable system comprising a joint between two identical cables (Fig. 2), wherein each of the cables (Fig. 1) including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor, wherein the insulation system includes an inner semiconducting layer (12), an insulation layer (14) comprising a first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the power core taught by Cho et al. (Fig. 1) for each of the power cores (10a, 11a, 12a) and for each of the three single-core cables (10, 11, 12) of Moore since the power core/cable taught by Cho et al. has improved electrical and physical properties.
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, pre-molded, 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).
It is noted that since the modified system of Moore comprises structure and material as claimed, it is a high voltage, or extra high voltage, submarine power cable system; the three-core power cable can be a three-core submarine power cable; the three single core power cables can be three single core submarine power cables; the system can be configured to handle high voltage having a rated voltage of 72 kV or higher (re-claim 1). It has been held that
Re-claim 2, Moore, as modified, discloses the first polymeric material being XLPE (Cho, [0064]).
Re-claims 4, 5, and 16, Moore, as modified, discloses each single-core cable comprising a respective metallic water blocking layer (Cho, 22, Fig. 1) arranged around the insulation system, and a respective armor layer (34) including a plurality of armor wires being arranged helically around the metallic water blocking layer and comprising copper (Cho, [0076]).
Re-claims 6 and 17, Cho discloses a joint sleeve (214) comprising the same material as the insulation layer (14, [0012], restoration layer 214…the same material as the insulating layer 14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the joint sleeve (206) of Moore to comprising the first polymeric material, joint sleeve and insulation layer comprising the same material, as taught by Cho to provide a continuous/compatible layer between the two insulation systems.
Re-claims 7 and 18, the three-core power cable and the three single-core power cables are AC power cables since they comprise structure and material as claimed.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Jung et al. (2024/0177888).
Moore discloses a power cable system comprising a three-core power cable comprising three power cores (10a, 11a, 12a); three single-core power cables (10, 11, 12); and a rigid joint (200, Fig. 16) connecting each power core to a respective one of the single-core power cables (re-claim 1).
Moore does not disclose the three power cores being stranded; each power core including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising a first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer; each single-core power cable including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising the first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (re-claim 1).
Jung et al. discloses a power cable system comprising a three-core power cable (1000) comprising three power cores (300), each (Fig. 2) including a conductor (310), an inner semiconducting layer (320), an insulation layer (330) comprising a polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (340); a single core cable (Fig. 2) comprising an inner conductor (310), an inner semiconducting layer (320), an insulation layer (330) comprising the polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (340) (re-claim 1). Jung et al. also discloses the polymeric material being XLPE ([0040]) (re-claim 2); each of the three power cores (300) comprising a respective metallic water blocking layer (380, [0047]) arranged around the insulation system, wherein the three-core power cable includes an armor layer (700) including a plurality of armor wires (710) arranged helically around the three power cores (300) (re-claims 3 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the three-core (10a, 11a, 12a) power cable of Moore with the three-core power cable (1000) of Jung et al. and to substitute each single core cable (10, 11, 12) of Moore with the single core cable (300) of Jung et al. since the core/cable taught by Jung et al. has improved electrical and physical properties (re-claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to strand the three cores in the three-core power cable (of Jung) in the modified system of Moore to improve the cable flexibility and durability against bending and twisting since a cable comprising stranded cores is known in the art (re-claim 1).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Cho et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Morice et al. (9466407).
Claims 8 and 19 additionally recite the conductor of each single-core power cable being of Milliken type. Morice et al. discloses a single-core power cable. Morice et al. discloses that conductors of the Milliken type are known for being used in high voltage cables (col. 1, lines 18-24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use conductor of the Milliken type for the conductor of each single-core power cable in the modified system of Moore since such conductor is known in the art for being used in high voltage cables as taught by Morice et al.
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Anderson et al. (3816639).
Moore discloses a power cable system comprising a three-core power cable comprising three power cores (10a, 11a, 12a) each including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor; three single-core power cables (10, 11, 12) each including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor; and a rigid joint (200, Fig. 16) connecting each power core to a respective one of the single-core power cables (re-claim 1).
Moore does not disclose the three power cores being stranded; each insulation system of the power cores including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising a first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer; each insulation system of the three single-core power cables including an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer comprising the first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (re-claim 1).
Although not disclosed in Moore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to strand the three cores in the three-core cable of Moore together to improve the cable flexibility and durability against bending and twisting since a cable comprising stranded cores is known in the art.
Anderson et al. discloses a high voltage power cable system comprising a joint between two identical cables (Fig. 1) including a respective conductor and an insulation system arranged around the conductor, wherein the insulation system includes an inner semiconducting layer (14), an insulation layer (16) comprising a first polymeric material, and an outer semiconducting layer (18) (re-claim 1). Anderson et al. also discloses the first polymeric material being ethylene-propylene rube (EPR) (col. 3, lines 5-6) (re-claims 2 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the power core taught by Anderson et al. for each of the power cores (10a, 11a, 12a) and for each of the three single-core cables (10, 11, 12) of Moore such that the modified system can be used as high voltage system.
It is noted that since the modified system of Moore comprises structure and material as claimed, it is a high voltage, or extra high voltage, submarine power cable system; the three-core power cable can be a three-core submarine power cable; the three single core power cables can be three single core submarine power cables; the system can be configured to handle high voltage having a rated voltage of 72 kV or higher (re-claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Moore does not disclose three joint sleeves. Examiner would disagree because Moore does teach three joint sleeves 206 each connecting the insulation system of a respective power core with the insulation system of one of the single-core cables.
Applicant argues that Cho is directed to a flexible joint, not rigid joint, and Jung is silent regarding any joint. Examiner would disagree with such arguments. Cho and Jung, each is relied upon only to support the position of using power cables which comprise multiple layers in an insulation system and have improved mechanical and electrical properties. Cho and Jung do not have to disclose a rigid joint which is already taught by Moore.
Applicant argues that Anderson does not teach or suggest three joint sleeves. Examiner would disagree with such argument because Moore teaches the three joint sleeves (206).
Applicant argues that Morice does not teach or suggest a rigid joint, a joint sleeve, or a joint between a three-core cable and three single core cables. Examiner would disagree with such argument because Morice is relied upon only to support the position of Milliken-type conductor is known for being used in high voltage cables. Morice does not have to disclose a rigid joint, a joint sleeve, or a joint between a three-core cable and three single core cables.
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