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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/02/2026 has been entered.
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 1-9 & 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrberg et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2015/0248951) in view of Ziemek (US Patent # 5,760,334) in further view of Resner et al. (“Radial Water Barrier in Submarine Cables, Current Solutions and Innovative Development Directions” NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Tyrberg discloses a dynamic submarine power cable (i.e. dynamic high-voltage submarine cable 1) comprising:
a conductor (i.e. electrical conductor 14),
an insulation system (i.e. electrical insulation system 12) arranged around the conductor,
wherein the insulation system comprises includes an inner semiconducting layer arranged around the conductor, an insulation layer arranged around the inner layer, and an outer layer arranged around the insulation layer (i.e. conductor 14 is shown to be surrounded by 3 layers that are part of insulation system 12), and
a metallic water blocking layer (i.e. radial water barrier 10 which consists of a corrugated metal tube) arranged around the insulation system,
wherein the metallic water blocking layer is formed by a first section (i.e. radial water barrier 10 covering dynamic high-voltage submarine cable 1 from floating platform 2 to buoyancies 3) that is a corrugated metallic water blocking layer (i.e. corrugated metal tube) and a second section (i.e. radial water barrier 10 covering dynamic high-voltage submarine cable 1 from buoyancies 3 to joint 5) that is a metallic water blocking layer, the corrugated metallic water blocking layer transitioning to the metallic water blocking layer , and
wherein the entire length of the metallic water blocking layer consists of copper, copper alloy, aluminium, aluminium alloy, or stainless steel (i.e. copper, copper alloy, or stainless steel) (Fig. 1-3; Abstract; Paragraphs 0002-0006, 0012-0013, 0027-0031).
Tyrberg does not explicitly disclose that the inner layer and outer layer are semiconducting layers or that the metallic water blocking layer of the second section is smooth.
Ziemek teaches the inner layer (i.e. inner conductor shield 14 which is a semi-conductive extruded polymeric material) and outer layer (i.e. extruded semi-conducting polymeric shield layer 18) are semiconducting layers (Fig. 4; Abstract; Column 3, line 50-57).
Ziemek teaches that it is well known in the art of submarine cables to use semiconductive layers as the inner and outer layers of an insulation system in order to provided shielding for the cable. Tyrberg is silent on the particular composition of the layers of insulation system 12. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the inner and outer layers of the insulation system of Tyrberg of semiconductive materials, as taught by Ziemek, in order to provide shielding for the cable.
Tyrberg in view of Ziemek does not explicitly disclose that the metallic water blocking layer of the second section is smooth.
Resner teaches that the metallic water blocking layer of the second section is smooth (Table 2; Pages 6, 11-13, 15).
Resner teaches that using a corrugated metal sheath as a radial water barrier is a well known and proven construction for high voltage dynamic submarine cables, but is a complex and costly solution that can only be used in a limited range of water depth while a smooth metal sheath can is the most common solution due to it being simple and cheap to manufacture. Therefore, it would be useful to combine them where appropriate in order to optimize the cable with each configuration’s strengths. Tyrberg does disclose that the static part of the cable 4 does have a non-corrugated lead sheath since said part does not require as much flexibility and that the most severe fatigue load typically occurs in the vicinity to the platform attachment point, i.e. at water depths of 0-30 meters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to extend that non-corrugated, smooth lead sheath beyond joint 5 to the buoyancies 3 in Tyrberg, as taught by Resner, in order to simplify and minimize the cost of manufacturing while optimizing the cable’s construction relative to depth. Even further, Resner teaches that it is well known in the art and part of the state of the art that the water barrier can comprise smooth or corrugated layers of aluminum, copper, or stainless-steel tapes or sheaths. This teaching provides further support for making the entire length of the metallic water blocking layer of copper, copper alloy, or stainless steel as required by the claim.
Claim 12 includes the limitations of Claim 1 (a method of producing the dynamic submarine power cable) and is analyzed as such with respect to that claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the first section is a top section (i.e. above buoyancies 3), and the second section is a bottom section (i.e. below buoyancies 3) of the dynamic submarine power cable in an installed state (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 3, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the corrugated metallic water blocking layer extend from a first end, or within 10-15 metres from the first end, of the dynamic submarine power cable until it transitions to the smooth metallic water blocking layer, which extends from the transition point (i.e. buoyancies 3) to a second end of the dynamic submarine power cable, opposite to the first end (Fig. 1-3; Paragraph 0002, 0027-0028).
Regarding Claim 4, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner does not explicitly disclose that the first section is at least 50 m long, such as at least 100 m long, such as at least 150 m long, such as at least 200 m long.
However, these are typical lengths used in submarine cables. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first section at least 50 m long, at least 100 m long, at least 150 m long, or at least 200 m long, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first section at least 50 m long, at least 100 m long, at least 150 m long, or at least 200 m long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner does not explicitly disclose that the first section is at most 800 m long, such as at most 600 m long, such as at most 400 m long.
However, these are typical lengths used in submarine cables. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first section at most 800 m long, at most 600 m long, or at most 400 m long, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first section at most 800 m long, at most 600 m long, or at most 400 m long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the metallic water blocking layer is made in one length in a region where it transitions (i.e. buoyancies 3) from being the corrugated metallic water blocking layer to being the smooth metallic water blocking layer (Fig. 1-3; Paragraph 0002, 0027-0028). Furthermore, a corrugated tube or sheath is usually made starting with a smooth metallic tube and only after formation of the smooth extruded tube/sheath, the metallic tube/sheath is passed through "corrugation dies" that provide the corrugated shape. It is therefore sufficient to remove those dies after the extrusion of the smooth tube to have a transition or only partially corrugate the sheath/tube. Manufacturing the corrugated section and non-corrugate, smooth section as separate pieces would require a joint which would introduce a weak point to the cable.
Regarding Claim 7, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the insulation system is made in one length along the entire length of the dynamic submarine power cable (Fig. 1-3; Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 8, Tyrberg does not explicitly disclose a polymeric layer arranged around the metallic water blocking layer, wherein the polymeric layer extends along the first section and along the second section.
Ziemek teaches a polymeric layer (i.e. extruded polymeric jacket 20) arranged around the metallic water blocking layer, wherein the polymeric layer extends along the first section and along the second section (Fig. 4; Abstract; Column 3, line 50-57).
Ziemek teaches that it is well known in the art of submarine cables to provide a polymeric jacket/layer around the corrugated metallic water blocking layer/sheath. Tyrberg is silent on an external jacket but it is well known to provide them around the metal sheath in order to protect the cable and the sheath in particular from corrosion. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to a polymeric layer arranged around the metallic water blocking layer of Tyrberg of semiconductive materials, as taught by Ziemek, in order to provide further protection and prevent corrosion of the metallic water blocking layer.
Regarding Claim 9, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek does not explicitly disclose an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is arranged between the polymeric layer and the smooth metallic water blocking layer in the second section to bond the polymeric layer to the metallic water blocking layer along the second section.
Resner teaches an adhesive, wherein the adhesive (i.e. adhesive layer) is arranged between the polymeric layer (i.e. outer sheath) and the smooth metallic water blocking layer (i.e. smooth copper tape) in the second section to bond the polymeric layer (9) to the metallic water blocking layer along the second section (Page 12).
Resner teaches that it is well known in the art of submarine cables to include an adhesive layer between a smooth metallic water blocking layer and an outer sheath in order to improve its mechanical and fatigues properties during bending. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide an adhesive arranged between the polymeric layer and the smooth metallic water blocking layer in the second section of Tyrberg in view of Ziemek, as taught by Resner, in order to improve its mechanical and fatigues properties during bending by bonding the layers.
Regarding Claim 11, Tyrberg discloses a floating platform (i.e. floating platform 2), and a dynamic submarine power cable as claimed in claim 1 suspended from the floating platform, wherein the first section and the second section of the metallic water blocking layer are arranged in a water column between the floating platform and the seabed, wherein the first section forms a top section, and the second section forms a bottom section of the dynamic submarine power cable in the water column (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0002, 0007, 0018).
Regarding Claim 13, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that during steps a) and b) the dynamic submarine power cable is in one length, and the metal tube in step a) and the metal tube in step b) are the same, made in one length (Fig. 1-3; Paragraph 0002, 0027-0028). Furthermore, a corrugated tube or sheath is usually made starting with a smooth metallic tube and only after formation of the smooth extruded tube/sheath, the metallic tube/sheath is passed through "corrugation dies" that provide the corrugated shape. It is therefore sufficient to remove those dies after the extrusion of the smooth tube to have a transition or only partially corrugate the sheath/tube. Manufacturing the corrugated section and non-corrugate, smooth section as separate pieces would require a joint which would introduce a weak point to the cable.
Regarding Claim 14, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resne does not explicitly that the metal tubes in steps a) and b) are physically separate metal tubes, wherein the method comprises, after steps a) and b), c) jointing the first section and the second section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the metal tubes in steps a) and b) be physically separate metal tubes, wherein the method comprises, after steps a) and b), c) jointing the first section and the second section, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Furthermore, Tyrberg discloses a joint 5 between dynamic cable 1 and static cable 4 which could also be used for joining a first section and a second section.
Regarding Claim 15, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the corrugated metallic water blocking layer extend from a first end, or within 10-15 metres from the first end, of the dynamic submarine power cable until it transitions to the smooth metallic water blocking layer, which extends from the transition point (i.e. buoyancies 3) to a second end of the dynamic submarine power cable, opposite to the first end (Fig. 1-3; Paragraph 0002, 0027-0028).
Regarding Claim 16, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner does not explicitly disclose that the first section is at least 50 m long, such as at least 100 m long, such as at least 150 m long, such as at least 200 m long.
However, these are typical lengths used in submarine cables. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first section at least 50 m long, at least 100 m long, at least 150 m long, or at least 200 m long, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first section at least 50 m long, at least 100 m long, at least 150 m long, or at least 200 m long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 17, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner does not explicitly disclose that the first section is at most 800 m long, such as at most 600 m long, such as at most 400 m long.
However, these are typical lengths used in submarine cables. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first section at most 800 m long, at most 600 m long, or at most 400 m long, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first section at most 800 m long, at most 600 m long, or at most 400 m long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 18, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the metallic water blocking layer is made in one length in a region where it transitions (i.e. buoyancies 3) from being the corrugated metallic water blocking layer to being the smooth metallic water blocking layer (Fig. 1-3; Paragraph 0002, 0027-0028). Furthermore, a corrugated tube or sheath is usually made starting with a smooth metallic tube and only after formation of the smooth extruded tube/sheath, the metallic tube/sheath is passed through "corrugation dies" that provide the corrugated shape. It is therefore sufficient to remove those dies after the extrusion of the smooth tube to have a transition or only partially corrugate the sheath/tube. Manufacturing the corrugated section and non-corrugate, smooth section as separate pieces would require a joint which would introduce a weak point to the cable.
Regarding Claim 19, Tyrberg in view of Ziemek & Resner discloses that the insulation system is made in one length along the entire length of the dynamic submarine power cable (Fig. 1-3; Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 20, Tyrberg does not explicitly disclose a polymeric layer arranged around the metallic water blocking layer, wherein the polymeric layer extends along the first section and along the second section.
Ziemek teaches a polymeric layer (i.e. extruded polymeric jacket 20) arranged around the metallic water blocking layer, wherein the polymeric layer extends along the first section and along the second section (Fig. 4; Abstract; Column 3, line 50-57).
Ziemek teaches that it is well known in the art of submarine cables to provide a polymeric jacket/layer around the corrugated metallic water blocking layer/sheath. Tyrberg is silent on an external jacket but it is well known to provide them around the metal sheath in order to protect the cable and the sheath in particular from corrosion. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to a polymeric layer arranged around the metallic water blocking layer of Tyrberg of semiconductive materials, as taught by Ziemek, in order to provide further protection and prevent corrosion of the metallic water blocking layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant continues to argue that one skilled in the art would not use the teachings of Resner to modify Tyrberg to extend the non-corrugated, smooth metallic water blocking layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that the Applicant has mischaracterized the teachings of Resner. As discussed above, Resner teaches that using a corrugated metal sheath as a radial water barrier is a well known and proven construction for high voltage dynamic submarine cables, but is a complex and costly solution that can only be used in a limited range of water depth while a smooth metal sheath can is the most common solution due to it being simple and cheap to manufacture. Therefore, it would be useful to combine them where appropriate in order to optimize the cable with each configuration’s strengths. Tyrberg does disclose that the static part of the cable 4 does have a non-corrugated lead sheath since said part does not require as much flexibility and that the most severe fatigue load typically occurs in the vicinity to the platform attachment point, i.e. at water depths of 0-30 meters. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to extend that non-corrugated, smooth lead sheath beyond joint 5 to the buoyancies 3 in Tyrberg, as taught by Resner, in order to simplify and minimize the cost of manufacturing while optimizing the cable’s construction relative to depth. Even further, Resner teaches that it is well known in the art and part of the state of the art that the water barrier can comprise smooth or corrugated layers of aluminum, copper, or stainless-steel tapes or sheaths. This teaching provides further support for making the entire length of the metallic water blocking layer of copper, copper alloy, or stainless steel as required by the claim. The 112(a) rejection is moot since the Applicant has removed the conflicting word "directly" from the claim. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification only describes the “transition” as a “jointing” which is described as a soldering or welding between the sections. Tyrberg also includes a “joint” which would comprise a similar structure and thus would have such a “transition” as defined by the Applicant.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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 on (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights