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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/069259 filed on July 11, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-21 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.
In regards to claim 1, the term “hard” is a relative term of degree and is indefinite without an objective standard. It is unclear whether “hard” refers a hardness value on a particular scale with a numerical threshold or a tensile strength/elongation range. In the absence of an alloy designation or an incorporated industry standard/specification (e.g., ASTM B xxx, IEC 60889/61089), one of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty what materials are encompassed, and the scope of “hard aluminium” is therefore uncertain. The examiner will interpret the term “hard” to be “a rigid.”
- The phrase “surrounded with an electrical conductor” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the conductor fully surrounds the core circumferentially (i.e., an annular layer), partially surrounds it (e.g., sector strands), or merely contacts it. The examiner will interpret the term “surrounded with an electrical conductor” to be “with a stranded aluminum conductor disposed circumferentially about the core”).
- The terms “aluminium ratio Ra of between 6 and 19” and “Ra = Sc/Sa × 100”: The inclusion of “× 100” indicates Ra is expressed as a percentage; however, the claim recites “between 6 and 19” without stating “percent” or whether the endpoints are inclusive, creating ambiguity as to whether 6–19% or the dimensionless range 6–19 is intended. The examiner will interpret “between 6 and 19” to be “between 6% and 19%”.
Further, the definitions of Sc (“cross section area of the composite core”) and Sa (“cross section area of the conductive aluminium of the cable”) are ambiguous because the claim does not specify the plane of measurement (e.g., a transverse section normal to the cable axis). Without objective measurement conditions or a referenced standard, different reasonable measurement approaches yield different Ra values, leaving the metes and bounds uncertain (see MPEP 2173.02 and 2173.05(a), (b), (t)).
The examiner will interpret the terms “a cross-section area of the composite core of the cable, and Sa is the a cross-section area of the conductive aluminum of the cable” to be “a transverse cross-section area of the composite core of the cable, and Sa is the a transverse cross-section area of the conductive stranded aluminum of the cable.”
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art of its scope and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 16 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “aluminium” should read “aluminum”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiel et al. (US 2004/0131851).
In regards to claim 1, Hiel et al. teaches a high-voltage cable (overhead voltage power transmission cable (paragraph [0054]) comprising a composite core (inner core (302); composite cores comprise at least one type of fiber, paragraph [0033], figure 11) with a stranded aluminum conductor (306, 308; figure 11) disposed circumferentially about the core (see figure 11, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach the high-voltage cable is limited to 95 °C ± 5 °C; the electrical conductor is a rigid aluminum with an aluminum ratio Ra of between 6% and 19%, where Ra is calculated according to the following rule: Ra = Sc/Sa x100 where Sc is a transverse cross-section area of the composite core of the cable, and Sa is the a transverse cross-section area of the conductive stranded aluminum of the cable.
Hiel et al. does teach the conductors whose operating temperature capability is set by the choice of core and aluminum strand materials and geometry (composite core can have a maximum operating temperature capability above 100.degree. C. or within the range of about 45.degree. C. to about 230.degree. C. (abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to choose a rating of 95 ± 5 °C; routine optimization of known result-effective variables (materials, strand temper, and cross-sectional proportions) with a reasonable expectation of achieving the desired rating. Further, the term “limited to” language characterizes an operating property under specified conditions rather than imposing a distinct structural feature on the product; when operated in standard conditions at or below 100 °C, it would inherently satisfy this property since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Iii re Boesch, Eli f.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215. It would have also been obvious to select a Ra within 6–19% as part of routine engineering tradeoffs to meet specified line ratings and strength targets, with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed formula merely defines the parameter; for any given conductor with specified Sc and Sa, Ra is inherently determined.
In regards to claim 2, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1, wherein the composite core (302) is comprised of a matrix and a carbon fibre core (carbon fiber reinforcement , paragraph [0033]) surrounded with an insulating layer (304).
In regards to claim 3, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2.
Heil et al. does not explicitly teach the matrix has a glass transition temperature Tg < 160 °C.
Heil et al. does teach polymeric matrices for composite cores and the selection of matrix materials to meet thermal and mechanical performances.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the matrix has a glass transition temperature Tg < 160 °C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 4, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 3.
Heil et al. does not explicitly teach the glass transition temperature Tg of the matrix is such that 90 °C <Tg< 140 °C.
Heil et al. does teach polymeric matrices for composite cores and the selection of matrix materials to meet thermal and mechanical performances.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the glass transition temperature Tg of the matrix is such that 90 °C <Tg< 140 °C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 5, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2, wherein the matrix is an epoxy matrix (epoxy matrix, paragraph [0051]).
In regards to claim 6, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2, wherein the matrix is a vinyl matrix (the core may also be basalt embedded in a vinyl ester, paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 7, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2, wherein the matrix is an acrylic reactive matrix (thermoplastic resin, paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claim 8, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2, wherein the matrix is a thermoplastic matrix (thermoplastic resin, paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claim 9, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach the insulating layer has a volume of between 40 % and 80 % of the a total volume of the composite core.
Hiel et al. does teach the insulating layer (304) around the composite core as well as the dimension portions as design variables to achieve dielectric performances and mechanical protection (abstract; paragraph [0034]: a fiber to resin volume fraction 60% or lower, a fiber to resin weight fraction 72% or lower by weight, adjustable volume fraction, substantially low coefficient of thermal expansion, a substantially high tensile strength, ability to withstand a substantially high range of operating temperatures, ability to withstand substantially low ambient temperatures, having the potential to customize composite core resin properties, substantially high dielectric properties, having the potential of a plurality of geometric cross section configurations, and sufficient flexibility to permit winding of continuous lengths of composite core).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have made the insulating layer has a volume of between 40 % and 80 % of the a total volume of the composite core; selecting an insulating layer having a volume fraction of the core in the range of 40%-80% is a routine geometrical design, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regards to claim 10, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 2, wherein the insulating layer comprises glass fibres (glass fibres, paragraph [0043]).
In regards to claim 12, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim wherein the insulating layer comprises basalt fibres (paragraph [0043], basalt fibres).
In regards to claim 13, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim, wherein the carbon fibres have a tensile strength < 4500 MPa (160 Ksi -380 Ksi which is 1103-2610.01 MPa, less than 4500 MPa).
In regards to claim 14, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach the high-voltage cable has a diameter of between 10 and 60 mm, preferably between 15 mm and 45 mm.
Hiel et al. teaches does teaches Hiel et al. does teach the insulating layer (304) around the composite core as well as the dimension portions as design variables to achieve dielectric performances and mechanical protection (paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the high-voltage cable has a diameter of between 10 and 60 mm, preferably between 15 mm and 45 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 15, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1, wherein the aluminum conductors (306) are trapezoidal in shape (see figure 11).
In regards to claim 17, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim, wherein the composite core (302) is capable of being produced by pultrusion (pultrusion, abstract).
In regards to claim 18, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach the high-voltage cable has a winding diameter of less than 140 times the diameter of the composite material core.
Heil et al. does teach handing bending and winding during installation and transportation of the cable (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the cable of Hiel et al. the winding diameter of less than 140 times the diameter of the composite material core ensure acceptable bending without damaging the composite core.
In regards to claim 19, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach a thermal ageing stress generates a loss of Tg strictly less than 30 °C in wet saturation at 90 °C.
Heil et al. does teach a selection of matrix resins and fiber systems to achieve thermal and environmental durability for conductor cores. Choosing matrix materials and fiber/matrix combinations that retain Tg under thermal ageing and wet conditions (i.e., exhibit limited Tg loss) is an anticipated materials performance goal (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious of one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the cable of Heil et al. the thermal ageing stress generates a loss of Tg strictly less than 30 °C in wet saturation at 90 °C since Achieving Tg loss of less than 30 °C under the recited conditions would have been an objective and predictable result of selecting appropriate matrix chemistries, additives, and cure processes publication and common general knowledge; it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 20, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach the high-voltage cable has a crack propagation resistance, GlC> 80 J/m2 and preferably> 100 J/m2.
Heil et al. does teach mechanical toughness and damage tolerance as design considerations for composite cores (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the cable of Heil et al. the high-voltage cable has a crack propagation resistance, GlC> 80 J/m2 and preferably> 100 J/m2 . Improving fracture toughness by choice of matrix, fiber, and interface engineering to obtain G1C values above a selected threshold is within the ordinary skill of the art; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Iii re Boesch, Eli f.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
In regards to claim 21, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Hiel et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the high-voltage cable has a tensile strength 60% due to aluminum and 40% due to composite.
Heil et al. does teach that mechanical load carrying is shared between the composite core and the surrounding conductive strands, and that design tradeoffs (cross sectional areas, material strengths) determine the relative contribution of each component to overall tensile strength (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the teachings of Heil et al. the high-voltage cable has a tensile strength 60% due to aluminum and 40% due to composite; Altering the cross-sectional proportions (Sc and Sa) and choosing material properties such that approximately 60% of tensile load is carried by aluminum and 40% by the composite is a straightforward engineering adjustment of dimensions and materials it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Iii re Boesch, Eli f.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiel et al. (US 2004/0131851) in view of Erb (US 2014/031885).
In regards to claim 11, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim.
Heil et al. does not explicitly teach the insulating layer comprises silica fibres.
Erb teaches the insulating layer (2) comprises silica fibres (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the insulation layer of Heil et al. include silica fibres as taught by Erb, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiel et al. (US 2004/0131851) in view of Comoret (US 2015/0279518).
In regards to claim 16, Hiel et al. teaches the high-voltage cable according to claim 1.
Heil et al. does not explicitly teach the aluminum conductors are Z-shaped.
Comoret teaches the aluminum conductors (1C) are Z-shaped (see figure 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the aluminum conductors of Heil et al. of a Z-shape as taught by Comoret since Comoret teaches the “Z”-shaped strands makes it possible to obtain a surface virtually devoid of any interstices which may bring about accumulations of moisture and thus centers of corrosion (paragraph [01750]); such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. (US 2006/0131059) teaches a cable with aluminum and fibre cable with a glass transitional temperatures.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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 Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848