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/FR2022/052398, being filed on December 16, 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. 18/723,797, filed on June 24, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 24, 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 were received on June 24, 2024. These drawings are approved.
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 there appear to be run on sentences, since there are no periods, 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).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 5, the abstract contains the misspelled term “Thie”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term with the correct term –The--.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brus (Pub Num 2007/0037435). Brus discloses a termination (Figs 1-13) for a cable capable of transporting high voltage (Paragraphs 1-2), while providing adequate protection against outside influences, such as moisture penetration, while also providing good screening from external electrical fields (Paragraph 9). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Brus a termination (Fig 1) for a cable (15) for transporting high-voltage or very-high-voltage electricity (Paragraph 1-2) comprising a composite end (Fig 14) of a cable (15) comprising an elongate central conducting element (16) and a plurality of layers (17, 19, 20, 21) arranged successively from the innermost to the outermost coaxially around this conducting element (16, Fig 4), wherein the plurality of layers (17, 19, 20, 21) may have comprising an inner semi-conducting layer (not shown, Paragraph 74 states a field control layer may be disposed on conductor), an electrically insulating layer (17), and an outer semi-conducting layer (19), such that parts of the layers (17, 19, 20, 21) are stripped from a distal end of a free end of the cable (15, Fig 4), wherein the outer semi-conducting layer (19) is removed over an axial length that is greater than the length over which the electrically insulating layer (17) is stripped (Fig 4), wherein the end of the outer semiconducting layer (19) is modified to comprise a gradient in order to form a chamfer (18) at the end of the outer semi-conducting layer (19), and wherein the termination (Fig 13) has a stress cone (33) provided with an annular lip (located at 18) is added around this free end so that this cone lip (located at 18) covers the chamfer (18) over the entirety of its length (Paragraph 85). With respect to claim 3, Brus discloses that the chamfer edge (18) is in contact with the electrically insulating layer (17), and defines in an annular zone of axial length (Fig 4) measuring less than 5 mm along a longitudinal axis of the cable (15, i.e. 20-18 mm =2mm, Paragraph 75). With respect to claim 4, Brus discloses that the outer semi-conducting layer (18) may be made from a thermoplastic material (i.e. conductive filled plastic, Paragraph 20).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brus (Pub Num 2007/0037435). Brus discloses a termination (Figs 1-13) for a cable capable of transporting high voltage (Paragraphs 1-2), while providing adequate protection against outside influences, such as moisture penetration, while also providing good screening from external electrical fields (Paragraph 9), as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
While Brus discloses that the outer semiconducting layer may be made from a thermoplastic material (Col, lines), Brus doesn’t necessarily disclose the outer semi-conducting layer having a hardness below a predetermined threshold, in the case of a Shore A hardness, below 95 and, in the case of a Shore D hardness, below 43 (claim 5).
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cable termination of Brus to comprise the outer semiconducting layer to be made of a semiconducting silicone rubber, which inherently has a Shore A hardness of below 95 (i.e. 80-90) and a Shore D hardness of below 43 (i.e. 30-40), since it is well known in the art of cables that semiconducting silicone material, is commonly utilized as stress cones and/or anti tracking tubes in high voltage cable terminations in order to reduce electrical stress while allowing for easy installation and since it has been held to be within 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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brus (Pub Num 2007/0037435) in view of Zagula (Pub Num 2018/0248344). Brus discloses a termination (Figs 1-13) for a cable capable of transporting high voltage (Paragraphs 1-2), while providing adequate protection against outside influences, such as moisture penetration, while also providing good screening from external electrical fields (Paragraph 9), as disclosed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Brus discloses that the chamfer (18) having a gradient (Fig 4).
However, Brus doesn’t necessarily disclose the chamfer having a gradient of less than 2° (claim 2).
Zagula teaches a cable stripping tool (Figs 1-27) having an adjustability, improved stability, and blade tracking (Paragraph 11), while resulting in a very stable cutting condition, reduced working forces and cable damage, and consistently supports the cable during heavy cuts (Paragraph 12). Specifically, with respect to claim 2, Zagula teaches a cable stripping tool (Figs 23-27) comprising a blade (50) and level (48’) that rotates the blade (50) to form a chamfer of a cable coating (not shown) having a gradient of less than 2° (i.e. the blade may be rotated between 0-20°, Paragraph 69).
With respect to claim 2, 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 termination of Brus to comprise the cable chamfer to have a gradient less than 2° utilizing the cable stripping tool as taught by Zagula because Zagula teaches that such a cable stripping tool (Figs 1-27) having an adjustability, improved stability, and blade tracking (Paragraph 11), while resulting in a very stable cutting condition, reduced working forces and cable damage, and consistently supports the cable during heavy cuts (Paragraph 12) and 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.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brus (Pub Num 2007/0037435) in view of Zagula (Pub Num 2018/0248344). Brus discloses a termination (Figs 1-13) for a cable capable of transporting high voltage (Paragraphs 1-2), while providing adequate protection against outside influences, such as moisture penetration, while also providing good screening from external electrical fields (Paragraph 9). Specifically, with respect to claim 6, Brus discloses a method for preparing a termination (Fig 13) for a cable (15, Fig 4) for transporting high-voltage or very-high-voltage electricity (Paragraphs 1-2) for an free end of a cable (15), wherein the cable (15) comprising having an elongate central conducting element (16) and a plurality of layers (17, 19, 20, 21) arranged successively from the innermost to the outermost coaxially around this conducting element (16, Fig 4), wherein the plurality of layers (17, 19, 20, 21) may have comprising an inner semi-conducting layer (not shown, Paragraph 74 states a field control layer may be disposed on conductor), an electrically insulating layer (17), and an outer semi-conducting layer (19), wherein the method comprises the steps of stripping the electrically insulating layer (17) starting from a distal end of a free end of the cable (15, Fig 4), wherein the outer semi-conducting layer (19) is removed over an axial length that is greater than the length over which the electrically insulating layer (17) is stripped (Fig 4), wherein the end of the outer semiconducting layer (19) is modified to comprise a gradient in order to form a chamfer (18) at the end of the outer semi-conducting layer (19), and adding a stress cone (33) provided with an annular lip (located at 18) is added around this free end so that this cone lip (located at 18) covers the chamfer (18) over the entirety of its length (Paragraph 85).
While Brus discloses that the semiconducting layer (19) having a chamfer (18), Brus doesn’t necessarily disclose the stripping of the insulation using a stripper device, nor using a glass blade to modify a gradient of the end of the outer semiconducting layer (claim 6), nor method wherein the stripper device comprises a flat blade oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cable (claim 7).
Zagula teaches a cable stripping tool (Figs 1-27) having an adjustability, improved stability, and blade tracking (Paragraph 11), while resulting in a very stable cutting condition, reduced working forces and cable damage, and consistently supports the cable during heavy cuts (Paragraph 12). Specifically, with respect to claims 6-7, Zagula teaches a cable stripping tool (Figs 23-27) comprising a flat blade (50) and level (48’) that orients the flat blade (50) perpendicular to form a chamfer of a cable coating (not shown) having a gradient of less than 2° (i.e. the blade may be rotated between 0-20°, Paragraph 69).
With respect to claims 6-7, 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 termination of Brus to utilizing the cable stripping tool comprising a blade as taught by Zagula because Zagula teaches that such a cable stripping tool (Figs 1-27) having an adjustability, improved stability, and blade tracking (Paragraph 11), while resulting in a very stable cutting condition, reduced working forces and cable damage, and consistently supports the cable during heavy cuts (Paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 6, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the blade of modified Brus to be made of a glass blade material, since it is well known in the art of high voltage cables that linemen/high voltage technicians used strippers utilizing glass blades to shave/scrape away semiconductive and insulation layers to create a smooth transition from the insulation to the semiconductive layer because of the glass blades ability to allow precision, ensures a smooth finish, and prevents damage to the underlying conductor which is critical in high voltage environments (examiner takes official notice).
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 terminations of high voltage cables.
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
February 18, 2026