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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/EP2022/080456, being filed on November 1, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/702,832, filed on April 19, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 19, 2024 has been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-3 lack the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductor and insulation materials is improper. The applicant should refer to MPEP Section 608.02 for the proper cross-hatching of materials. Correction is required.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because throughout the abstract, it contains a few run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (Pat Num 4,095,039). Thompson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-3) having greater flexibility (Col 2, lines 15-18). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Thompson discloses a power cable (Fig 2) comprising a conductor (40), an insulation system (42, 44, 46) having an inner semiconducting layer (42) arranged radially outside the conductor (40), an insulation layer (44) arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (42) and an outer semiconducting layer (46) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (44) and an adhesive layer (52) arranged between the conductor (40) and the inner semiconducting layer (42), wherein the adhesive layer (52) directly contacting an inner surface of the inner semiconducting layer (42, Col 3, lines 57-61) and/or the adhesive layer (52) directly contacting an outer surface of the conductor (40, Col 2, lines 65-68). With respect to claim 2, Thompson discloses that the conductor (40) has an outer surface (Fig 2) that has one or more portions that are free of the adhesive (52, i.e. where the stranded conductors 10 abut the semiconducting layer (42, Fig 2). With respect to claim 4, Thompson discloses that adhesive layer (52) may be semiconductive (Col 4, lines 7-8) and covers the essentially the entire outer surface of the conductor (40, Fig 2). With respect to claim 8, Thompson discloses that the adhesive layer (52) is formed of an adhesive plastic (Col 3, lines 29-40).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (Pat Num 4,095,039) in view of Janah et al (Pat Num 2013/0206452, herein referred to as Janah). Thompson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-3) having greater flexibility (Col 2, lines 15-18), as disclosed with respect to claims 1-2 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Thompson discloses that the cable (Fig 2) comprises an adhesive layer (52), wherein the inner semiconducting layer (42) covers the entire outer surface of the conductor (40, Fig 2).
However, Thompson doesn’t necessarily disclose the adhesive being electrically insulating (claim 3).
Janah teaches a cable (Fig 1) that is resistant to partial discharges (Paragraph 10) cause by humidity, high temperatures, and low pressure (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claim 3, Janah teaches a cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a conductor (2), an insulation system (3) that may have an inner semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the conductor (2), wherein the insulation layer (3) would be arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (Paragraph 37, Claim 8) and an outer semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (3, Claim 8) and an adhesive layer (5a) arranged between the conductor (2) and the inner semiconducting layer (not shown, Paragraph 37), wherein the adhesive layer (3) directly contacts an outer surface of the conductor (2) and is made of an electrically insulating material (Paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the power cable of Thompson to comprise the adhesive being made of an electrical insulating material configuration as taught by Janah because Janah teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Fig 1) that is resistant to partial discharges (Paragraph 10) cause by humidity, high temperatures, and low pressure (Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (Pat Num 4,095,039) in view of Gustafsson et al (WO Pat Num 2020/234391, herein referred to as Gustafsson) and Janah (Pat Num 2013/0206452). Thompson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-3) having greater flexibility (Col 2, lines 15-18), as disclosed with respect to claims 1-2 & 4 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 5-6, 9-10, and 14-16, Thompson discloses that the adhesive layer (52) being provided on the conductor (40). With respect to claims 11 & 17, Thompson discloses that the adhesive layer (52) is formed of an adhesive plastic (Col 3, lines 29-40).
However, Thompson doesn’t necessarily disclose a tape layer arranged between the conductor and the inner semiconducting layer (claims 12-13), nor the tape being semiconducting (claims 7 & 18).
Gustafsson teaches a power cable (Figs 1-4) that prevents water from migrating longitudinally in the interstices of the cable (Page 11, lines 20-21). Specifically, with respect to claims 5-6, 9-10, and 15-16, Gustafsson teaches a power cable (Fig 2) comprising a conductor (3), an insulation system (5, 7, 9) having an inner semiconducting layer (5) arranged radially outside the conductor (3), an insulation layer (7) arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (5) and an outer semiconducting layer (9) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (7) and an filling layer (15) arranged between the conductor (3) and the inner semiconducting layer (5), wherein a tape layer (17) is arranged between the conductor (3) and the inner semiconducting layer (5), wherein the filling layer (15) directly contacts an inner surface of the tape layer (17) and/or directly contacting an outer surface of the conductor (3, Page 12, lines 15-19). With respect to claims 7 & 18, Gustafsson teaches that the tape layer (17) may be semiconducting (Page 12, lines 13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the power cable of Thompson to comprise the tape layer configuration as taught by Gustafsson because Gustafsson teaches that such a configuration provides a power cable (Figs 1-4) that prevents water from migrating longitudinally in the interstices of the cable (Page 11, lines 20-21).
Thompson also doesn’t necessarily disclose the adhesive layer being arranged between the tape layer and the inner semiconducting layer, the adhesive layer being provided on an outer surface of the tape layer adhering the tape layer to the inner semiconducting layer (claims 5, 9, & 15), nor the adhesive layer is arranged between the tape layer and the conductor, the adhesive layer being provided on an inner surface of the tape layer adhering the tape layer to the conductor (claims 6, 10, & 16).
Janah teaches a cable (Fig 1) that is resistant to partial discharges (Paragraph 10) cause by humidity, high temperatures, and low pressure (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claims 5-6, 9-10, and 15-16, Janah teaches a cable (1, Fig 1) comprising a conductor (2), an insulation system (3) that may have an inner semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the conductor (2), wherein the insulation layer (3) would be arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (Paragraph 37, Claim 8) and an outer semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (3, Claim 8) and an adhesive layer (5a) arranged between the conductor (2) and the inner semiconducting layer (not shown, Paragraph 37), wherein the semiconducting layers may be in the form of tapes (Paragraphs 32-33), and wherein adhesive layers (3) may be placed between the insulation layer (3) and the outer surface of the inner semiconducting layer adhering the tape layer to the inner semiconducting layer (Paragraph 37) and/or arranged between the tape layer and the conductor (2) adhering the tape layer to the conductor (2, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the power cable of modified Thompson to comprise the adhesive layers being between the conductor and tape layer and between the tape layer and inner semiconducting layer configuration as taught by Janah because Janah teaches that such a configuration provides a cable (Fig 1) that is resistant to partial discharges (Paragraph 10) cause by humidity, high temperatures, and low pressure (Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (Pat Num 4,095,039) in view of Janah (Pat Num 2013/0206452), as applied to claim 3 above (herein referred to as modified Thompson), further in view of Gustafsson (WO Pat Num 2020/234391). Modified Thompson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-3) having greater flexibility (Col 2, lines 15-18). Specifically, with respect to claims 12-13, modified Thompson discloses a cable (1, Fig 1, see Janah above with respect to claim 3) comprising a conductor (2), an insulation system (3) that may have an inner semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the conductor (2), wherein the insulation layer (3) would be arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (Paragraph 37, Claim 8) and an outer semiconducting layer (not shown) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (3, Claim 8) and an adhesive layer (5a) arranged between the conductor (2) and the inner semiconducting layer (not shown, Paragraph 37), wherein the semiconducting layers may be in the form of tapes (Paragraphs 32-33), and wherein adhesive layers (3) may be placed between the insulation layer (3) and the outer surface of the inner semiconducting layer adhering the tape layer to the inner semiconducting layer (Paragraph 37) and/or arranged between the tape layer and the conductor (2) adhering the tape layer to the conductor (2, Paragraph 37). With respect to claim 14, modified Thompson discloses that the adhesive layer (52) is formed of an adhesive plastic (see Thompson above, Col 3, lines 29-40).
However, modified Thompson doesn’t necessarily disclose a tape layer arranged between the conductor and the inner semiconducting layer (claims 5-6, 9-10, & 15-16), nor the tape being semiconducting (claims 7 & 18).
Gustafsson teaches a power cable (Figs 1-4) that prevents water from migrating longitudinally in the interstices of the cable (Page 11, lines 20-21). Specifically, with respect to claims 5-6, 9-10, and 15-16, Gustafsson teaches a power cable (Fig 2) comprising a conductor (3), an insulation system (5, 7, 9) having an inner semiconducting layer (5) arranged radially outside the conductor (3), an insulation layer (7) arranged radially outside the inner semiconducting layer (5) and an outer semiconducting layer (9) arranged radially outside the insulation layer (7) and an filling layer (15) arranged between the conductor (3) and the inner semiconducting layer (5), wherein a tape layer (17) is arranged between the conductor (3) and the inner semiconducting layer (5), wherein the filling layer (15) directly contacts an inner surface of the tape layer (17) and/or directly contacting an outer surface of the conductor (3, Page 12, lines 15-19). With respect to claims 7 & 18, Gustafsson teaches that the tape layer (17) may be semiconducting (Page 12, lines 13-15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the power cable of modified Thompson to comprise the tape layer configuration as taught by Gustafsson because Gustafsson teaches that such a configuration provides a power cable (Figs 1-4) that prevents water from migrating longitudinally in the interstices of the cable (Page 11, lines 20-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various power cables comprising adhesives.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 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.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
January 10, 2026