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
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 (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 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, Moore, as modified, discloses 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. 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).
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 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Moore is not designed for high voltage and that one skilled in the art would find no reason to modify the structure of the cable of Moore to be rated at 72 kV or higher. Examiner would disagree. Moore, col. 20, lines 39-40, discloses that the cable is designed for 5 kV applications. However, Moore does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using high voltage cables in the system. In fact, Moore in col. 20 lines 42-43, discloses that “it is not limited to any particular type of conductor.”
Applicant argues that Moore does not disclose three single-core cables. Examiner would disagree. Three cables 10-12 of Moore are three separate cables. Each cable has a single core. Therefore, the three cables 10-12 are three single-core cables.
Applicant argues that Cho and Jung, both silent regarding a system being configured to handle high or extra high voltage, 72kV or 150 kV or higher. Examiner would disagree. MPEP 2173(g) discusses functional language, and explains that a claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is.” MPEP 2114 explains that with regard to apparatus and article claims, functional language does not enable novelty by itself. Specifically, this section explains that “while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
Conclusion
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.
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