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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19, is a redundant part of claim 18 (see claim 18, last two lines).
Claim 21, lines 2-3, “the polymeric material” is unclear to which one, first or second.
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, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. (EP 2521139) in view of Wannerskog et al. (2021/0163641) and Leon-Giarena et al. (2016/0379737).
Lund et al. discloses a submarine power cable comprising: a plurality elongated elements arranged in a stranded configuration (col. 4, lines 48-49), wherein at least two of the elongated elements are power cores (2), each power core having a conductor (7), an insulation system arranged around the conductor, and a polymeric sheath (10) including a first polymeric material arranged around the insulation system, and a plurality of filler profiles (3) including a second polymeric material, each filler profile being arranged in a respective interstice between two elongated elements of the plurality of elongated elements, wherein the first polymeric material (10) comprises polyethylene ([0016]) (re-claim 1).
Lund et al. does not disclose the first polymeric material and/or the second polymeric material including a slip additive; and the second polymeric material comprising polyethylene (re-claim 1).
Wannerskog et al. discloses a cable jacket comprising a polymeric material which includes a slip additive in an amount of 0.01-5 wt% of the total weight of the polymeric material ([0047]) (re-claims 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a slip additive, as taught by Wannerskog et al., in the first polymeric material (sheath) of Lund et al. to improve the mechanical properties of the sheath.
Leon-Guarena et al. discloses a filler profile comprising polyethylene ([0036]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use polyethylene for the second polymeric material (filler profile) of Lund et al. since polyethylene is a flexible material which also has high mechanical strength as taught by Leon-Guarena et al.
Re-claims 10-11, Lund et al. discloses the cable comprising a first bedding layer (11) enclosing the elongated elements, wherein the first bedding layer includes a third polymeric material, and wherein the third polymeric material comprises polyethylene. Lund et al. does not disclose the third polymeric material having a slip additive. Wannerskog et al. discloses a cable jacket comprising a polymeric material which includes a slip additive ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a slip additive, as taught by Wannerskog et al., in the third polymeric material of Lund et al. to improve the mechanical properties of the sheath, reduced friction.
Re-claim 14, Lund et al. discloses each power core (2) being in direct contact with two of the filler profiles.
Re-claim 15, the modified submarine power cable of Lund et al. is a dynamic submarin power cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Re-claim 17, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use amide, such as erucamide or oleamide, as the slip additive in the modified cable of Lund et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since such material is known in the art for being used as a slip agent.
Claims 1-9, 14, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon-Guarena et al. in view of Maioli et al. (11177054) and Sasse et al. (2010/0236811).
Leon-Guarena et al. discloses a submarine power cable comprising a plurality of elongated elements (25a-25c) arranged in a stranded configuration ([0050]), wherein at least two of the elongated elements are power cores, each power core having a conductor and an insulation system (not labeled) arranged around the conductor; a plurality of filler profiles (1) including a (second) polymeric material, each filler profile being arranged in a respective interstice between two of the elongated elements, wherein the (second) polymeric material (of filler 1) comprises MDPE (medium density polyethylene, [0036]) (re-claims 1 and 8).
Leon-Guarena et al. does not disclose each power core having a polymeric sheath including a (first) polymeric material arranged around the insulation system; the (first) polymeric material comprising polyethylene; and the (first) and/or (second) polymeric material including a slip additive (re-claim 1).
Maioli et al. discloses a power cable comprising power cores (12) each having a polymeric sheath (127) including a polymeric material arranged around an insulation system, wherein the polymeric material comprises MDPE (col. 8, lines 13-15) (re-claims 1 and 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrange the polymeric sheath (127) as taught by Maioli et al. around the insulation system of each power core of Leon-Guarena et al. to further protect the conductor.
Sasse et al. discloses a power core (cable) comprising a polymeric sheath including a slip additive ([0038], last three lines) in an amount of 0.01-5 wt% of the total weight of the polymeric material, wherein the slip additive comprises erucamide or oleamide (re-claims 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the slip additive as taught by Sasse et al. to the first and second polymeric materials in the modified cable of Leon-Guarena et al. to reduce surface coefficient of friction.
Re-claim 6, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use talc as the slip additive in the modified cable of Leon-Guarena et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting cable since talc is known in the art for being used as a slip agent.
Re-claim 9, Maioli et al. discloses each power core (12) comprising a metallic water blocking layer (126), wherein the polymeric sheath (127) is arranged radially outside the metallic water blocking layer (col. 8 lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a metallic water blocking layer as taught by Maioli et al. in each modified power core of Leon-Guarena et al. to further protect the conductor and insulation system.
Re-claim 14, Leon-Guarena et al. discloses each power core being in direct contact with two of the filler profiles.
Re-claim 15, the modified power cable of Leon-Guarena et al. is a dynamic submarine power cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed.
Re-claims 18 and 19, Leon-Guarena et al., as modified, discloses the first polymeric material (see sheath 127 of Maioli) being a MDPE and the second polymeric material (filler profile 1) being a MDPE ([0036]).
Re-claim 21, Leon-Guarena et al., as modified, discloses the slip additive being a migrating slip additive, a portion of which has migrated to a surface of the polymeric material in which the slip additive is contained to reduce a friction coefficient of the surface (see Sasse, abstract and [0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, 8, and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Wannerskog teaches composition based on polypropylene, and that the combination of Lund and Wannerskog would therefore fails to render obvious the subject matter of amended claim 1. Examiner would disagree. Wannerskog is relied upon to support the position of adding a slip additive into a polymeric composition or a polyolefin composition to improve the mechanical properties of the same.
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
Prosecution Insights