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 foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/820,709, filed on August 30, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 30, 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 Figure 1 lacks the proper cross-hatching which indicates the type of materials, which may be in an invention. Specifically, the cross hatching to indicate the conductive 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 in lines 1-9, the abstract contains run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences in order to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 5-9, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beigert (EP Pat Num 3499253A1). Beigert discloses a DC submarine cable system (Figs 1-2) used to provide electrical power between two locations separated by a body of water by connecting two end sections of submarine cables (Paragraphs 2-3), wherein the submarine cable section determines a partial electrical discharge in the joint in a particularly simple and reliable way (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Beigert discloses a DC power cable system (Fig 1) comprising a power cable (13 & 14) including a conductor (located at 11 & 12, respectively), an insulation system (located at left and right 17, respectively) surrounding the conductor (located at 11 & 12, respectively), and an optical fiber cable (25 & 26, respectively as shown in Fig 2) extending along the insulation system (located at left and right 17, respectively), a power cable accessory (15, 10, 16), wherein the conductor (located at 11 & 12, respectively) is connected to the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16), a sensor (15, 16) arranged in the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16), a power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) extending along the insulation system (located at left and right 17), and a signal communication device (20 & 21, respectively) powered via the power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) and connected to the optical fiber cable (25 & 26, respectively as shown in Fig 2), wherein the signal communication device (20 & 21, respectively) is arranged to receive an electrical signal from the sensor (15 & 16, respectively), convert the electrical signal to an optical signal, and transmit the optical signal through the optical fiber cable (22 & 23, respectively, Paragraph 26). With respect to claim 2, Beigert discloses the sensor (15, 16, respectively) may be one of a temperature sensor, pressure sensor, partial discharge sensor, moisture sensor and/or gas detector (i.e. partial discharge sensor, Paragraph 27). With respect to claim 5, Beigert discloses that the power cable (13 & 14) is a HVDC power cable (Paragraph 14), and the power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) is a low voltage power supply lead (Paragraph 25). With respect to claim 6, Beigert discloses that the DC power cable accessory (15, 10, 16) is a joint (Paragraph 3). With respect to claim 7, Beigert discloses that the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16) comprises a connector (10) and the conductor (located 11 & 12) has a conductor end (11 & 12, respectively) attached to the connector (10), wherein the sensor (15 & 16) is arranged on the connector (10, Fig 1). With respect to claim 8, Beigert discloses that the DC power cable system (Fig 1), further comprising a power converter (located 20 & 21), wherein the power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) is connected to the power converter (located 20 & 21), and the power converter (located 20 & 21) is configured to power the signal communication device (20 & 21, respectively). With respect to claim 9, Beigert discloses that the signal communication device (20 & 21) is arranged in the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16, i.e. all are wrapped within a heat shrinkable tube, Paragraph 23). With respect to claim 11, Beigert discloses that the power cable (13 & 14, respectively) is a submarine power cable (Paragraph 22). With respect to claim 12, Beigert discloses that the optical fiber cable (22 & 23) is arranged to transmit the optical signal from the signal communication device (20 & 21) in the submarine power cable system (Fig 1) to an onshore monitoring arrangement (i.e. 24, Paragraph 2). With respect to claim 16, Beigert discloses that the power cable (13 & 14) is a HVDC power cable (Paragraph 14), and the power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) is a low voltage power supply lead (Paragraph 25). With respect to claim 17, Beigert discloses that the DC power cable accessory (15, 10, 16) is a joint (Paragraph 3). With respect to claim 18, Beigert discloses that the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16) comprises a connector (10) and the conductor (located 11 & 12) has a conductor end (11 & 12, respectively) attached to the connector (10), wherein the sensor (15 & 16) is arranged on the connector (10, Fig 1). With respect to claim 19, Beigert discloses that the DC power cable system (Fig 1), further comprising a power converter (located 20 & 21), wherein the power supply lead (18 & 19, respectively) is connected to the power converter (located 20 & 21), and the power converter (located 20 & 21) is configured to power the signal communication device (20 & 21, respectively). With respect to claim 20, Beigert discloses that the signal communication device (20 & 21) is arranged in the power cable accessory (15, 10, 16, i.e. all are wrapped within a heat shrinkable tube, Paragraph 23).
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) 3-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beigert (EP Pat Num 3499253A1) in view of Oh et al (Pub Num 2008/0247715, herein referred to as Oh). Beigert discloses a DC submarine cable system (Figs 1-2) used to provide electrical power between two locations separated by a body of water by connecting two end sections of submarine cables (Paragraphs 2-3), wherein the submarine cable section determines a partial electrical discharge in the joint in a particularly simple and reliable way (Paragraph 6), as applied to claims 1 & 2 above.
While Beigert discloses a DC power cable, Beigert doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable, wherein the insulation system comprises an inner semiconducting layer, an insulation layer arranged around the inner semiconducting layer, and an outer semiconducting layer arranged around the insulation layer (claims 3 & 14), nor an armor layer arranged around the insulation system, and wherein at least one of the power supply lead and the optical fiber cable is arranged in the armor layer (claims 4 & 15).
Oh teaches a known power cable system (Figs 1-3), capable of conducting direct current (i.e. DC, has an insulated conductor 10) and monitoring under installation environments for the operation of electricity utilizing temperature distribution (Paragraph 2). Specifically, with respect to claims 3 & 14, Oh teaches a power cable system (Fig 1) comprising a power cable (located at 10) including a conductor (10), an insulation system (11-13) surrounding the conductor (10), and an optical fiber cable (14) extending along the insulation system (11-13), a power cable accessory (20), wherein the conductor (10) is connected to the power cable accessory (20), and a sensor (21) arranged in the power cable accessory (20), wherein the insulation system (11-13) includes an inner semiconducting layer (11), an insulation layer (12) arranged around the inner semiconducting layer (11), and an outer semiconducting layer (13) arranged around the insulation layer (12). With respect to claims 4 & 15, Oh teaches that an armor layer (17) is arranged around the insulation system (11-13), wherein at least one of the power supply lead and the optical fiber cable is arranged in the armor layer (17, i.e. the optical fiber cable 14 along with filling material is arranged within the armor layer 17, Fig 1).
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 system of Beigert to comprise the insulation system configuration as taught by Oh because Oh teaches that such a configuration is a well-known power cable system configuration (Figs 1-3), capable of conducting direct current (i.e. DC, has an insulated conductor 10) and monitoring under installation environments for the operation of electricity utilizing temperature distribution (Paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 10 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beigert (EP Pat Num 3499253A1) in view of Gundel et al (Pub Num 2021/0344184, herein referred to as Gundel). Beigert discloses a DC submarine cable system (Figs 1-2) used to provide electrical power between two locations separated by a body of water by connecting two end sections of submarine cables (Paragraphs 2-3), wherein the submarine cable section determines a partial electrical discharge in the joint in a particularly simple and reliable way (Paragraph 6), as applied to claims 1 & 2 above.
However, Beigert doesn’t necessarily disclose the sensor being configured to wirelessly communicate the electrical signal to the signal communication device, and the signal communication device is configured to wirelessly receive the electrical signal from the sensor (claim 10), nor the signal communication device being arranged to include metadata, such as location, in the optical signal (claim 13).
Gundel teaches a power cable system (Figs 1-3), that may comprise either DC or AC power cables (Paragraph 106), that may be utilized as submarine cables (i.e. underwater cables, Paragraph 44), wherein the system facilitates cable monitoring system components by maintaining proper orientation of the cables to sensors, wherein the sensor may be utilized to detect partial discharge sensors (Paragraph 4). Specifically, with respect to claim 10, Gundel teaches a power cable system (Fig 3) comprising a power cable (350A & 350B, respectively) including a conductor (left & right 352, respectively), an insulation system (354-356) surrounding the conductor (left & right 352, respectively), wherein the conductor (left & right 352, respectively) is connected to the power cable accessory (340, Paragraph 116), a sensor (308) arranged in the power cable accessory (340, Paragraph 120), wherein the sensor (308) is configured to wirelessly communicate the electrical signal (via wireless devices 33, Paragraph 52) to a signal communication device (300), and the signal communication device (300) is configured to wirelessly receive the electrical signal from the sensor (via the wireless devices 33). With respect to claim 13, Gundel teaches that the signal communication device (300) may be arranged to storage data in a storage device (310), which may include metadata (Paragraphs 121-123), such as location, in the optical signal (Paragraph 242).
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 system of Beigert to comprise the wireless transmission and storage configuration as taught by Gundel because Gundel teaches that such a configuration provides a power cable system (Figs 1-3), that may comprise either DC or AC power cables (Paragraph 106), that may be utilized as submarine cables (i.e. underwater cables, Paragraph 44), wherein the system facilitates cable monitoring system components by maintaining proper orientation of the cables to sensors, wherein the sensor may be utilized to detect partial discharge sensors (Paragraph 4).
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 cable systems that monitor various characteristics of the cable themselves and have different configurations of monitoring various parameters of the 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
June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights