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 .
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 in line 2, the abstract recites the terms “…is described. One aspect includes…….”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert (EP Pat Num 3358690 A1) in view of Heidmann et al (Pub Num 2018/0062370, herein referred to as Heidmann). Ebert discloses a cable joint (Figs 1-3) for connecting two current conductors in high voltage current cable systems (Paragraph 1), wherein the connecting body is mechanically rigid (Paragraph 7). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Ebert discloses a cable joint (2, Figs 1-3) for connecting two current conductor portions (left & right 17) for conducting a direct current (Paragraph 36), comprising a control body (6) and a conductive connection piece (10) which is surrounded by the control body (6), wherein the connection piece (10) comprises a first receptacle (left 19) and a second receptacle (right 19), so that a conductor end (4) of a first current conductor portion (left 17) can be inserted into the first receptacle (left 19) in order to establish an electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (left 4) of the first current conductor portion (left 17) and a conductor end (right 4) of a second current conductor portion (right 17) can be inserted into the second receptacle (right 19) in order to establish an electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (right 4) of the second current conductor portion (right 17), and wherein the control body (6) comprises a plurality of insulation-spaced, concentric, conductive control inserts for resistive field control (Paragraphs 43-44), wherein the cable joint (2, Figs 1-3) comprises control insert (6) having an outermost surface (Fig 1). With respect to claim 2, Ebert discloses that the control body (6) may be formed by a resin-impregnated (i.e. carbon black filled plastic, Paragraph 42-43). With respect to claim 3, Ebert discloses that the control body (6) may have a dielectric strength of at least 320 kV (i.e. more than 500kv, Paragraph 7). With respect to claim 4, Ebert discloses that the connection piece (10) is configured for establishing a detachable connection by means of a press fit to the first and second conductor ends (i.e. left and right 4, Paragraphs 43-44). With respect to claim 6, Ebert discloses that a housing (9) may comprise fastening flanges (not shown) provided outside of the control body (6), wherein the fastening flanges (not shown) are configured for connection to the retaining device (left 5, Figs 2-3) of the first current conductor portion (left 17) of the housing (9, Paragraphs 10-11). With respect to claim 7, Ebert discloses that the control body (6) comprises first and second openings (i.e. left and right openings, respectively) which are cone shaped (Figs 1-3) and are arranged such that the conductor end (left 4) of a first current conductor portion (left 17) can be guided through the first opening (left opening) in order to establish electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (left 4) of the first current conductor portion (left 17) and the conductor end (right 4) of the second current conductor portion (right 17) can be guided through the second opening (right opening) in order to establish electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (right 4) of the second current conductor portion (right 17). With respect to claim 8, Ebert discloses a high voltage line system (1, Fig 1) for directing direct current (Paragraph 36) comprising a first and second cables (left and right 17), wherein the first and second cables (left and right 17) are mechanically and electrically interconnected by means of a cable joint (2) for connecting two current conductor portions (left & right 17) for conducting a direct current (Paragraph 36), comprising a control body (6) and a conductive connection piece (10) which is surrounded by the control body (6), wherein the connection piece (10) comprises a first receptacle (left 19) and a second receptacle (right 19), so that a conductor end (4) of a first current conductor portion (left 17) can be inserted into the first receptacle (left 19) in order to establish an electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (left 4) of the first current conductor portion (left 17) and a conductor end (right 4) of a second current conductor portion (right 17) can be inserted into the second receptacle (right 19) in order to establish an electrical contact between the connection piece (10) and the conductor end (right 4) of the second current conductor portion (right 17), and wherein the control body (6) comprises a plurality of insulation-spaced, concentric, conductive control inserts for resistive field control (Paragraphs 43-44).
However, Ebert doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable joint further comprises a charge carrier arrester, which is electrically connected to an outermost control insert and is configured for discharging surface charge carriers (claim 1).
Heidmann teaches a cable joint (Figs 1-7) for receiving high voltage cables (Paragraph 1), wherein partial discharges are minimized thereby reducing the mechanical stress that may develop in the insulation materials, such as cracks and fissures (Paragraph 3), thereby permitting early recognition of damage, enabling long range planning of maintenance and repair (Paragraph 13). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Heidmann teaches a cable joint (100, Fig 1) for connecting a current conductor portions (1) for conducting a current (Paragraph 64), comprising a control body (2) and a conductive connection (located at 11) which is surrounded by the control body (2), wherein the connection (located at 11), wherein the control body (2) comprises a plurality of conductive control inserts (2B, 2b) for resistive field control, wherein the cable joint (100) further comprises a charger carrier arrester (51), comprising several turns 51w, which are electrically connected to an outermost control insert (2) and is configured for discharging surface charge carriers in the field control part (Abstract).
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 cable joint of Ebert to further comprise the charge carrier arrester, which is electrically connected to an outermost control insert configuration as taught by Heidmann because Heidmann teaches that such a configuration provides a cable joint (Figs 1-7) for receiving high voltage cables (Paragraph 1), wherein partial discharges are minimized thereby reducing the mechanical stress that may develop in the insulation materials, such as cracks and fissures (Paragraph 3), thereby permitting early recognition of damage, enabling long range planning of maintenance and repair (Paragraph 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Heidman is an optical sensing fiber, not a charge carrier arrestor and is not electrical connected to an outermost control insert but rather is partly embedded in the field control part.
B) Element 2 is not a control insert but rather an elastomeric field control part and therefore doesn’t disclose a plurality of concentric conductive control inserts
C) The combination of Ebert and Heidmann does not teach or suggest the very feature that the examiner relies on to supply and therefore cannot render the claimed invention obvious.
With respect to argument A-C, the examiner respectfully traverses. Firstly, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Specifically, while the waveguide of Heimann detects any moderate differences of the material of the field control part, Heimann clearly teaches also that the waveguide discharges surface charge carriers formed on the surface of the control body. The abstract (see below) states that the surface charge (ie light signal) cause by the partial discharge in the field control unit (ie 2) is coupled from the unit (ie 2) and into the waveguide.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Secondly, 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). In this case, clearly Ebert discloses that the control body (6) comprises a plurality of insulation-spaced, concentric, conductive control inserts for resistive field control (Paragraphs 43-44), wherein the cable joint (2, Figs 1-3) comprises control insert (6) having an outermost surface (Fig 1). However, Ebert doesn’t teach the cable joint further comprises a charge carrier arrester, which is electrically connected to an outermost control insert and is configured for discharging surface charge carriers, however, Heimann was relied upon for teach such for the purpose of providing a cable joint (Figs 1-7) for receiving high voltage cables (Paragraph 1), wherein partial discharges are minimized thereby reducing the mechanical stress that may develop in the insulation materials, such as cracks and fissures (Paragraph 3), thereby permitting early recognition of damage, enabling long range planning of maintenance and repair (Paragraph 13).
Lastly, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, as explained above, Ebert teaches all of the claimed limitations, except the joint comprising a charge carrier arrester. However, based on the teaching of Heimann, 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 cable joint of Ebert to further comprise the charge carrier arrester, which is electrically connected to an outermost control insert configuration as taught by Heidmann because Heidmann teaches that such a configuration provides a cable joint (Figs 1-7) for receiving high voltage cables (Paragraph 1), wherein partial discharges are minimized thereby reducing the mechanical stress that may develop in the insulation materials, such as cracks and fissures (Paragraph 3), thereby permitting early recognition of damage, enabling long range planning of maintenance and repair (Paragraph 13).
In light of the above comments, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 103(a) rejection is proper and just.
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.
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
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights