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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “a second bedding layer and a second armour layer” as claimed in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, and 19 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. Regarding claims 7, 8, 18, and 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 10, last line, “a slip additive” is unclear to how this relates “a slip additive” cited in claim 1. Claim 12, last line, “a slip additive” is unclear to how this relates “a slip additive” cited in claims 1 and 10. Claim 16 appears to a redundant of claim 3. Claims 11 and 13 are included in this rejection because of dependency. 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. Claim s 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 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) . 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 (re-claim 1). Lund et al. does not disclose the first polymeric material and/or the second polymeric material includ ing a slip additive (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 of Lund et al. to improve the mechanical properties of the sheath. Re-claim s 7 and 18 , Lund et al. discloses the first polymeric material (10) comprising polyethylene ([0016]). 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. 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 submarine 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. Claim s 1, 3-6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. in view of Doufas et al. (2022/0306849) . 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 (re-claim 1). Lund et al. does not disclose the second polymeric material includ ing a slip additiv e in a range of 0.01-5 wt% of the total weight of the second polymeric material (re-claims 1 and 3) . Doufas et al. discloses a polymeric material, used to prepare packaging or in wire and cable applications ([0144] & [0154]) , including a slip additive which is erucamide or oleamide and in a range of 0.01-5 wt% of the total weight of the second polymeric material ([0109] & [0112]) (re-claim 1, 3-5, and 16). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a slip additive, as taught by Doufas et al., in the second polymeric material of Lund et al. to improve the mechanical properties of the same. 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 Lund 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 15, the modified submarine power cable of Lund et al. is a dynamic submarine power cable since it comprises structure and material as claimed. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. in view of Wannerskog et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon-Guarena et al. (2016/0379737) . Claims 8 and 19 additionally recite the second polymeric material (of the filler profile) comprising polyethylene. 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 of Lund et al. since polyethylene is a flexible material which also has high mechanical strength as taught by Leon-Guarena et al. Claims 9, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. in view of Wannerskog et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maioli et al. (11177054) . Re-claim s 9 and 20 , Maioli et al. discloses a power core (12) comprising a metallic water blocking layer (126) surrounded by a sheath (127) . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide each power core of Lund et al. with the metallic (126) taught by Maioli et al. to further protect the conductor from the environment. Re-claims 12 and 13, Lund et al. discloses the cable comprising an armour layer (6) arranged around the first bedding layer (11) and a second armour layer (14) arranged around the armour layer (6). Lund et al. does not disclose the cable comprising a second bedding layer arranged around the armour layer, wherein the second bedding layer includes a fourth polymeric material having a slip additive. Maioli et al. discloses the cable comprising a bedding layer (separating layer 19) between two armour layers, wherein the bedding layer includes a polymeric material which comprises a polyester-based material (Table 1, PET tape). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the bedding layer, as taught by Maioli et al., between the two armour layers of Lund et al. to further protect the cores. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1980 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, th e examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Imani N Hayman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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