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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Emerich (U. S. Pub. 2018/0340970).
As for claim 1, Emerich discloses a loop cap (see the combination of 405, 430 and 435 in Fig. 4; or the combination of 640, 655 and the combination of 680 and 685 in Fig. 6) comprising:
a base (connectors 405, or 640 or 680) having an outer surface (outer surface of the connector 405 in Fig. 4, or outer surface of connectors 640 or 680 in Fig. 6 are exposed to the subsea environment) and an inner surface, wherein the outer surface is configured to be exposed to a subsea environment (see [0022], [0023] and [0031];
a first terminal (the first terminal for connecting to the first wire/conductor of cable 410 in Fig. 4; or terminal 660A in Fig. 6) that extends through the base, wherein the first terminal has a first proximal portion (the first portion on the right side of connector 405 in Fig. 4; or the portion to the left of connector 640 in Fig. 6) that is configured to be electrically coupled to a first electrical conductor (first wire of cable 410 or cable 635) providing high voltage power to a subsea electrical system (i.e., any connected subsea electronics module SEM or online test device 665);
a second terminal ( the second terminal for connecting to the second wire/conductor of cable 410 in Fig. 4; or terminal 660B in Fig. 6) that extends through the base, wherein the second terminal has a second proximal portion (the second portion on the right side of connector 405 in Fig. 4; or the portion to the left of the connector 640 in Fig. 6) that is configured to be electrically coupled to a second electrical conductor (second wire of cable 410 or cable 635) providing high voltage power to the subsea electrical system (i.e., any connected subsea electronics module SEM or online test device 665); and
a jumper (the short pin or wire used as the probe ends in Fig. 4, see [0023]; or the probe ends 675A or 675B in Fig. 6) that provides electrical continuity between the first terminal and the second
terminal.
As for claim 2, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 1, wherein the first terminal further has a first distal portion (see the first portion on the left side of connector 405; or the portion to the right of connector 640 in Fig. 6) that is configured to be exposed to the subsea environment (e.g., subsea section 615 in Fig. 6) and to be electrically coupled to a test probe (probes 440A; also see measurement probes in [0029]) used to measure a power parameter associated with the subsea electrical system.
As for clam 3, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 2, wherein the second terminal further has a second distal portion (see the second portion on the left side of connector 405; or the portion to the right of connector 640 in Fig. 6) that is configured to be exposed to the subsea environment (e.g., subsea section 615 in Fig. 6) and to be electrically coupled to a second test probe (probe 440B; [0029]) used to measure the power parameter associated with the subsea electrical
system.
As for claim 10, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 1, wherein the phase selection is in a fixed position and not configurable (i.e., the phase selection of the terminals 660A, 660B and 660C are fixed and not configurable in Fig. 6).
As for claim 11, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 1, wherein the jumper (the short pin or wire used as the probe ends in Fig. 4, see [0023]; or the probe ends 675A or 675B in Fig. 6) is internal to an enclosure (655) of the loop cap and is inaccessible.
As for claim 12, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 1, further comprising:
a sensor device (measuring/metering device 420 in Fig. 4 or measuring/metering devices in Fig. 6; or online test device 665 in Fig. 6) configured to measure a parameter associated with the subsea electrical system;
a controller (SEM PLC 670) communicably coupled to the sensor device, wherein the controller is configured to: obtain a measurement made by the sensor device; generate, using the measurement, an evaluation of the subsea electrical system; and communicate the evaluation; and
an energy storage device (power means for providing power to the controller 670 and sensor 665) configured to provide power to the controller and the sensor device.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerich (U. S. Pub. 2018/0340970) in view of Diesen (U. S. Pub. 2016/0245867).
As for claim 4, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Emerich does not specifically disclose wherein the test probe can be controlled by a remotely operated vehicle (by using the wireless communication methods/network and the subsea electronics module SEM logic controller PLC 670 in Fig. 6).
Diesen discloses it is conventional in the art to use a remotely operated vehicle to control a test head (see [0024] and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Emerich to use a conventional remotely operated vehicle as taught by Diesen to control the test probe, for the purpose of remotely controlling the test probe in Emerich for in-situ testing of components in subsea environment.
5. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerich (U. S. Pub. 2018/0340970) in view of Minamii et al. (U. S. Patent 3,594,635).
As for claims 5-9, Emerich discloses the loop cap of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Emerich does not specifically disclose wherein a phase selection of the jumper is configurable between the first terminal, the second terminal, and a third terminal, using a mechanically or electrically operated rotary switch, and configurable topsides before the loop cap is installed subsea.
Minamii et al. discloses using a rotary switch (30 in Fig. 2) for testing different sets of terminals of a multiconductor electric cable in an automatic manner.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Emerich to disclose that the jumper is configurable topsides before the loop cap is installed subsea by using any conventional mechanical rotary switch or electrical rotary switch, as taught by Minamii et al., for the purpose of easily and selectively connecting different sets of the first, second and third terminals, in order to test different insulation faults in the different sets of the first, second and third terminals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY HE whose telephone number is (571)272-2230. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am--5:00pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/AMY HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858