Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/435,614

SUBMARINE POWER CABLE WITH FLUID TRANSPORT CAPABILITY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 07, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, CHAU N
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nkt Hv Cables AB
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
1031 granted / 1520 resolved
At TC average
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
70 currently pending
Career history
1590
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1520 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 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 12, 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friberg et al. (EP 3011374) in view of Johanson (EP 3913268). PNG media_image1.png 433 553 media_image1.png Greyscale Friberg et al. discloses a method of operating a submarine cable ([0006]) having a plurality of power cores (24a-24c), each including a conductor (25a), and an insulation system arranged around the conductor, wherein the insulation system includes an inner semiconducting layer (25b) arranged around the conductor, an insulation layer (25c) arranged around the inner semiconducting layer, and an outer semiconducting layer (25d) arranged around the insulation layer, an outer layer (28) arranged around the plurality of power cores, a filler profile (4) arranged in a space between two of the power cores and the outer layer, wherein the filler profile has an outer circumferential boundary that includes two inner arcs (8, 10), each receiving a portion of a respective one of the two power cores, and an outer arc (6) which is curved towards the outer layer, and a fluid channel (not numbered) arranged inside the filler profile, wherein the fluid channel extends along the entire length of the filler profile from one end of the cable to an opposite end of the cable, the method comprising transporting electricity by means of the power cores (re-claim 12). Friberg et al. also discloses the filler profile being made of a polymeric material ([0034]) (re-claim 21). Friberg et al. does not disclose the method comprising transporting fluid through the fluid channel (re-claim 12). Johanson discloses a method of operating a submarine power cable comprising transporting fluid through a fluid channel in a filler profile (210) (re-claim 12). Johanson also discloses the fluid being hydrogen gas (re-claim 16). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to not only use the cable of Friberg et al. to transport electricity but also transport hydrogen gas through the fluid channel as well, as taught by Johanson, since hydrogen gas plays a vital role in future energy infrastructure. Re-claim 15, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to choose a suitable pressure for transporting the fluid in the modified method of Friberg et al. since transporting a fluid with a pressure up to 500 mbar is known in the art, and it has been held that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friberg et al. in view of Johanson as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gidley (4619323). Claim 14 additionally recites performing step a) and b) simultaneously. Gidley discloses a method of operating a power cable, the method comprising: a) transporting electricity by means of a plurality of power cores (15) and b) transporting fluid through a fluid channel (11), wherein step a) and b) are performed simultaneously (col. 4, lines 18-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Gidley when operating the modified power cable of Friberg et al. to transport electricity and fluid at the same time. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580099
Electrical cable that limits partial discharges
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573525
LEAD ALLOY BARRIER TAPE SPLICE FOR DOWNHOLE POWER CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567514
Low Sag Tree Wire
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567517
LOW-SMOKE, FLAME-RETARDANT DATA COMMUNICATION CABLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548691
CABLE CONNECTION COMPONENT AND CABLE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1520 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month