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
Information disclosure statement filed 2/01/2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0206238 A1 to Martin Regalado et al. (hereinafter “Regalado”).
Regarding claim 1, Regalado discloses a cable comprising: a first optical unit (4, 5, 5a in Fig. 1) comprising a first metal tube (4 in Fig. 1) housing at least one optical fiber (5 in Fig. 1) suitable for sensing strain (paragraph [0058]), said at least one optical fiber in the first metal tube being a tight buffered optical fiber fixed to an inner surface of the first metal tube (paragraph [0059]); a second optical unit (2, 3 in Fig. 1) comprising a second metal tube (2 in Fig.1) comprising at least one loose optical fiber (3 in Fig. 1) suitable for sensing temperature (paragraph [0055]); and an armor (7 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one layer of metal wires (paragraph [0069]), wherein the first optical unit is surrounded by at least one layer of semi-conductive or conductive material (paragraph [0061]-[0062]) electrically in contact with an outer surface of the first metal tube.
Regarding claim 3, Regalado discloses wherein the first metal tube and the second metal tube are made of stainless steel (paragraph [0053], [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Regalado discloses wherein the tight buffered optical fiber is fixed to the inner surface of the first metal tube by means of an adhesive compound (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Regalado discloses wherein the first optical unit is located substantially at a center of the cable (i.e. 4 in Fig. 1 is substantially at the center).
Regarding claim 8, Regalado discloses wherein the first optical unit is located within the armor (i.e. 4 is within surrounding armor 7 in Fig. 1) inside place of a metal wire (i.e. within metal wire armor 7).
Regarding 15, Regalado discloses a measurement system for measuring strain as already discussed above. Although Regalado does not explicitly state that this measurement system is “for” overhead power transmission line, such an intended purpose is fully capable of being realized by the device of Regalado. As such the claimed limitations of claim 15 is fully anticipated by Regalado.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regalado.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Regalado discloses a cable according to claim 1 as already discussed above. Although Regalado discloses the first and the second metal tubes of the first and the second optical units being in close proximity to the metal outer tube and the metal armor, it does not explicitly disclose that the first metal tube and the second metal tube of the optical unit are in electrical contact with the armor as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, having the metal tubes of the optical units being in electrical contact with the metal cable amor is well known and common in the art. Such electrical contact would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable since it would allow for effective electrical grounding for the transmission cables and ensure robust transmission cables for various outdoor applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Regalado to have the first metal tube and the second metal tube of the optical unit are in electrical contact with the armor as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 5, Regalado discloses a cable according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the first optical unit being surrounded by an aluminum tube as claimed. On the other hand, the use of an aluminum tube is well known and common in the cabling art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using an aluminum tube instead of copper or stainless steel since it is highly corrosion resistant, offers high conductivity, and they are cost effective in cabling applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Regalado to have an aluminum tube as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Regalado discloses wherein the tight buffered optical fiber is fixed to the inner surface of the first metal tube by means of an adhesive compound (5a in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Regalado discloses wherein the first optical unit is located substantially at a center of the cable (i.e. 4 in Fig. 1 is substantially at the center).
Regarding claim 19, Regalado discloses wherein the first optical unit is located within the armor (i.e. 4 is within surrounding armor 7 in Fig. 1) inside place of a metal wire (i.e. within metal wire armor 7).
Claim(s) 6, 9-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regalado in view of US Patent No. 6,859,590 B1 to Zaccone et al. (hereinafter “Zaccone”).
Regarding claims 6, 9-10, 20, Regalado discloses a cable according to claim 1 and claim 16 as already discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second optical unit are surrounded by a semiconductive cover embedding the optical units, wherein the semiconductor cover is semiconductive polyethylene or cross-linked polyethylene as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such a semiconductive cover is known in the art. For example, Zaccone discloses a hybrid electrical optical cable comprising a semiconductive cover enclosing optical units therein (Fig. 1; column 4, lines 22-25), wherein the semiconductor cover is semiconductive polyethylene or cross-linked polyethylene (column 4, lines 30-50). Such semiconductor covers would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would allow for effective suppression localized partial electrical discharge and minimize insulation degradation and cable failure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Regalado to have the first and the second optical unit to be surrounded by a semiconductive cover embedding the optical units, wherein the semiconductor cover is semiconductive polyethylene or cross-linked polyethylene as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 11, Regalado discloses the use of a third metal tube surrounding the first and the second optical unit (i.e. 6 in Fig. 1). However, it does not explicitly disclose that this metal tube is an aluminum tube as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of an aluminum tube is well known and common in the cabling art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using an aluminum tube instead of copper or stainless steel since it is highly corrosion resistant, offers high conductivity, and they are cost effective in cabling applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Regalado to have an aluminum tube as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Regalado discloses the use of a third metal tube (6 in Fig. 1) surrounding the first and the second optical units. As such, the claimed limitations of claim 12 are also obvious for the same reasons as discussed regarding claims 9-10.
Regarding claim 13, Regalado discloses the use of an adhesive compound (6a in Fig. 1). However, it does not explicitly disclose that the adhesive compound is a semiconductive adhesive.
Regarding claim 14, Regalado in view of Zaccone renders obvious the claimed cable of claim 12 as discussed above. However, Regalado does not explicitly disclose the use of a fourth metal tube that is aluminum as claimed in claim 14. On the other hand, the use of an outer aluminum tube is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using such a metal tube as advantageous and desirable, since it would ensure effective sealing of internal cable components from harsh environmental factors. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using an aluminum material, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Regalado to have a fourth metal tube that is aluminum as claimed in claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/SUNG H PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874