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/SE2023/050396, being filed on April 27, 2023.
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. 18/856,823, filed on October 14, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 14, 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 1A lacks 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 insulative 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 line 1, the abstract recites the terms “The disclosure relates to…..”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should delete the terms, to provide the abstract with proper language.
The abstract of the disclosure is also objected to because in line 2, the abstract recites the terms “comprising”, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the term “comprising” with the term –having--, 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, 5-8, 10, 14-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunnegardh et al (Pat Num 2016/0322129, herein referred to as Sunnegardh). Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight HV electrical cable (Figs 1-6) having improved power transmission capacity, whereby beside the higher working temperature, the breakdown strength and electrical field stress distribution of the extruded insulation material is improved, thereby enabling an increase of voltage level without any need for increasing the dimensions of the cable (Paragraph 21). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight high-voltage electrical cable (Figs 1-4) comprising a bundle of metallic wires (7, Fig 3), an inner semi-conductive layer (8) made of a first broad range temperature rated polymeric material of a first color (i.e. layer contains carbon black which has a black color, Paragraph 88), surrounding the bundle of metallic wires (7) wherein at least one of the metallic wires (7) is in electric contact with the inner semi-conductive layer (8, Paragraph 78), an insulating layer (9) made of a second broad range temperature rated polymeric material of a second color (i.e. layer may contain TiO2, which has a white color, Paragraph 85-86), surrounding the inner semi-conductive layer (8), an outer semi-conductive layer (10), made of a third broad range temperature rated polymeric material of a third color (i.e. layer contains carbon black which has a black color, Paragraph 88), surrounding and having a void-free and delamination- resistant bond (VFDR bond) to the insulating layer (9), wherein the second color (white) and the third color (black) contrasting with each other (Fig 3). With respect to claim 5, Sunnegardh discloses that the first color (i.e. black) being rendered at least partly by a first carbon particle additive(i.e. carbon black) in the inner semi-conductive layer (8, Paragraph 78) With respect to claims 6-7, Sunnegardh discloses that the second color (i.e. white) being rendered at least partly by a second color additive (i.e. TiO2) in the insulating layer (9, Paragraphs 85-86), wherein the second color additive may be selected from the group consisting of TiO2 and other inorganic metal oxides (Paragraphs 85-86). With respect to claim 8, Sunnegardh discloses that the second color additive (i.e. TiO2) being a pigment of less than 1 percent by weight in the insulating layer (9, i.e. 0.01-10wt%, Paragraph 86). With respect to claim 10, Sunnegardh discloses that the third color (i.e. black) being rendered at least partly by a third carbon particle additive (i.e. carbon black) in the material of the outer semi-conductive layer (10, Paragraph 88). With respect to claim 14, Sunnegardh discloses that the cable (Fig 3) comprising the inner semi-conductive layer (8) having a VFDR bond to the insulating layer (9, Figs 2-3). With respect to claim 15, Sunnegardh discloses that the third color is black (i.e. via carbon black, Paragraph 88) and the second color is white (i.e. via TiO2, Paragraphs 85-86). With respect to claim 16, Sunnegardh discloses that the first, the second, and the third broad range temperature rated polymeric materials are composed by the same polymers (i.e. Polyethylene, Paragraphs 54 & 88). With respect to claim 22, Sunnegardh discloses that the respective VFDR bonds of the inner semi-conductive layer (8), the insulating layer (9), and the outer semi-conductive layer (10) are formed in a process of co-extrusion in manufacturing of the electrical cable (Fig 3, Paragraph 63-68).
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) 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnegardh (Pat Num 2016/0322129). Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight HV electrical cable (Figs 1-6) having improved power transmission capacity, whereby beside the higher working temperature, the breakdown strength and electrical field stress distribution of the extruded insulation material is improved, thereby enabling an increase of voltage level without any need for increasing the dimensions of the cable (Paragraph 21), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 6 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 9, Sunnegardh discloses that the second color additive (i.e. TiO2, Paragraph 88) is evening distributed in the insulating layer (9, Fig 2). With respect to claim 11, Sunnegardh discloses that the insulation (10) has a potential difference between the inner semi-conductive layer (8) and the outer semi-conductive layer (10). With respect to claim 12, Sunnegardh discloses that the outer semiconducting layer (10) has an outer diameter (Fig 2). With respect to claim 13, Sunnegardh discloses that the insulating layer (9) has a manufactured radial thickness (Fig 2).
While Sunnegardh disclose the insulating layer being made of a second color additive, Sunnegardh doesn’t necessarily disclose the second color additive having a particle size less than 10 micrometers (claim 9), nor the insulating layer providing secure insulation for electric potential differences greater than or equal to 500 volts AC or DC and less than or equal to 5 kilovolts AC or 30 kilovolts DC (claim 11), nor an outer diameter of the outer semi-conductive layer being in a range of 3 through 20 millimeters (claim 12), nor a manufactured radial thickness of the insulating layer being in a range selected among 0.4 through 1.0 millimeters, 0.4 through 1.6 millimeters, and 0.4 through 2 millimeters (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the HV electrical cable of Sunnegardh to comprise the second color additive having a particle size less than 10 micrometers, an outer diameter of the outer semi-conductive layer being in a range of 3 through 20 millimeters, and a manufactured radial thickness of the insulating layer being in a range selected from 0.4 through 2 millimeters, 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) 2-3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnegardh (Pat Num 2016/0322129) in view of Applicant’s Own Admission of Prior Art (herein referred to as AOAPA). Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight HV electrical cable (Figs 1-6) having improved power transmission capacity, whereby beside the higher working temperature, the breakdown strength and electrical field stress distribution of the extruded insulation material is improved, thereby enabling an increase of voltage level without any need for increasing the dimensions of the cable (Paragraph 21), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 & 6 above.
While Sunnegardh disclose the insulating layer being made of a second color additive, Sunnegardh doesn’t necessarily disclose the cable further comprising the first color and the second color contrasting with each other; wherein the insulating layer being translucent, such that the first color of the inner semi- conductive layer affects in combination with the second color of the insulating layer a perceived shade of second color when the insulating layer is viewed at its outer perimeter at full radial thickness of the insulating layer (claim 2), nor the cable further comprising a translucency of the insulating layer being defined as an optical depth of the insulating layer being greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 10 (claim 3), nor a method of stripping an electrical cable, wherein the method comprises at an end of the electrical cable, stripping away a longitudinal segment of the outer semi-conductive layer and corresponding radially outermost parts of the insulating layer; ensuring, by color inspection, a complete removal of the longitudinal segment of the outer semi-conductive layer from the insulating layer (claim 17), nor the method comprising ensuring, by color or shade inspection, a sufficiently great thickness of remaining insulating layer (claim 18), nor the method, comprising comparing diffuse reflectance of remaining insulating layer to a reflectance reference to ensure sufficiently great thickness of remaining insulating layer (claim 19), nor a kit comprising the electrical cable and a reflectance reference surface to be visually matched against diffuse reflectance of the outer perimeter of the insulating layer after stripping away a longitudinal segment of the outer semi-conductive layer and corresponding radially outermost parts of the insulating layer (claim 20).
AOAPA teaches in the Background and Related Art section of the specification, that MLLWHV electrical cables having VFDR bonds are known in the art of cables. Specifically, with respect to claim 2, AOAPA teaches that the known MLLWHV cable comprises a plurality of metallic wires, an inner semiconducting layer surrounding the metallic wires that has a first color being black, an insulation layer surrounding the inner semiconducting layer, wherein the insulation layer is colorless (i.e. translucent), which would inherently affect the first color of the inner semi-conductive layer in combination with the second color of the insulating layer to have a perceived shade of second color when the insulating layer is viewed at its outer perimeter at full radial thickness of the insulating layer (Page 1, lines 15-18). With respect to claims 17-20, AOAPA teaches a method of stripping the known electrical cable utilizing a kit, wherein the method comprises at an end of the electrical cable, stripping away a longitudinal segment of the outer semi-conductive layer and corresponding radially outermost parts of the insulating layer; thereby ensuring, by color inspection, a complete removal of the longitudinal segment of the outer semi-conductive layer from the insulating layer (Page 1, lines 18-22), thereby inherently ensuring, by color or shade inspection and comparing diffuse reflectance of remaining insulating layer to a reflectance reference to ensure a sufficiently great thickness of remaining insulating layer.
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 of Sunnegardh to comprise the method of stripping the cable configuration as taught by AOAPA because AOAPA teaches that such a MLLWHV electrical cables having VFDR bonds and the method of stripping such cables are known in the art of cables. (Col 5, lines 6-8).
With respect to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the HV electrical cable of Sunnegardh to comprise a translucency of the insulating layer being defined as an optical depth of the insulating layer being greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 10, 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnegardh (Pat Num 2016/0322129) in view of Xiang et al (Pub Num 2016/0217888, herein referred to as Xiang). Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight HV electrical cable (Figs 1-6) having improved power transmission capacity, whereby beside the higher working temperature, the breakdown strength and electrical field stress distribution of the extruded insulation material is improved, thereby enabling an increase of voltage level without any need for increasing the dimensions of the cable (Paragraph 21), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above.
While Sunnegardh disclose the inner semiconducting layer, the insulating layer, and the outer semiconducting layer being made of a first, second, and third color additives, respectively, Sunnegardh doesn’t necessarily disclose the first, the second, and the third broad range temperature rated polymeric materials of the inner semi-conductive layer, the insulating layer and/or the outer semi-conductive layer being selected from the group consisting of: FEP, PFA, ETFE, MFA, PEEK, a PAEK family material, silicones, and fluoroelastomers (claim 4).
Xiang teaches a high voltage power cable (Figs 4-5) having improved reliability, smoothness and cleanness, while also reducing voids, contamination, or rough spots near the conductor shield/insulation interface, which would create stress points where discharge and cable degradation could occur (Paragraph 83). Specifically, with respect to claim 4, Xiang teaches a cable (500, Fig 5) comprising a bundle of metallic wires (510), an inner semi-conductive layer (520) made of a first broad range temperature rated polymeric material and surrounding the bundle of metallic wires (510), wherein at least one of the metallic wires (510) is in electric contact with the inner semi-conductive layer (520, Paragraph 73), an insulating layer (530) made of a second broad range temperature rated polymeric material and surrounding the inner semi-conductive layer (520), an outer semi-conductive layer (540), made of a third broad range temperature rated polymeric material and surrounding the insulating layer (530), wherein the first, the second, and the third broad range temperature rated polymeric materials of the inner semi-conductive layer (520), the insulating layer (530) and/or the outer semi-conductive layer (540) may be selected from the group consisting of: FEP, PFA, ETFE, MFA, PEEK, a PAEK family material, silicones, and fluoroelastomers (i.e. PEEK & PAEK family, Paragraphs 68 & 78).
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 Sunnegardh to comprise the first, the second, and the third broad range temperature rated polymeric materials of the inner semi-conductive layer, the insulating layer and/or the outer semi-conductive layer to be made from the group consisting of PAEK family specifically PEEK, material as taught by Xiang because Xiang teaches that such a material provides a high voltage power cable (Figs 4-5) having improved reliability, smoothness and cleanness, while also reducing voids, contamination, or rough spots near the conductor shield/insulation interface, which would create stress points where discharge and cable degradation could occur (Paragraph 83) 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) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnegardh (Pat Num 2016/0322129) in view of Ko et al (WO 2020/251225, herein referred to as Ko). Sunnegardh discloses a multi-layered lightweight HV electrical cable (Figs 1-6) having improved power transmission capacity, whereby beside the higher working temperature, the breakdown strength and electrical field stress distribution of the extruded insulation material is improved, thereby enabling an increase of voltage level without any need for increasing the dimensions of the cable (Paragraph 21), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 21, Sunnegardh discloses a cable (Fig 3) comprising the insulating layer (9) being formed of a second color (i.e. TiO2, Paragraph 85-86).
While Sunnegardh disclose the insulating layer being made of a second color additive, Sunnegardh doesn’t necessarily disclose the electrical cable comprising the insulating layer being formed by at least first and second distinct insulating sub-layers made of the second broad range temperature rated polymeric material and having the second color and a fourth color, respectively; the second and the fourth colors contrasting to each other, wherein the first and the second insulating sub-layers having a first and a second translucency, respectively, which are not equal to the first insulating sub-layer having a VFDR bond to the second insulating sub-layer (claim 21).
Ko teaches a high voltage power cable (Fig 1) having improved physical properties such as heat resistance, prevents scorch defects by using stable crosslinking agents, and shortens the extrusion process (Paragraph 17). Specifically, with respect to claim 21, Ko teaches a cable (100, Fig 1) comprising a bundle of metallic wires (10, Paragraph 129), an inner semi-conductive layer (20) made of a first broad range temperature rated polymeric material (i.e. XLPE) and surrounding the bundle of metallic wires (10), wherein at least one of the metallic wires (10) is in electric contact with the inner semi-conductive layer (20, Paragraph 129), an insulating layer (30, 40) made of a second and fourth broad range temperature rated polymeric material and surrounding the inner semi-conductive layer (20), wherein the insulating layer (30, 40) being formed by at least first and second distinct insulating sub-layers (30, 40) made of the second broad range temperature rated polymeric material and having the second color (i.e. may contain TiO2, which is white, Paragraph 96) and a fourth color (may be black or gray), respectively (Paragraph 47), the second and the fourth colors (i.e. white and black) contrasting to each other, wherein the first and the second insulating sub-layers (30, 40) having a first and a second translucency, respectively, which are not equal to the first insulating sub-layer having a VFDR bond to the second insulating sub-layer (30, i.e. black, gray, and white have separate translucencies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the HV electrical cable of Sunnegardh to comprise the insulating layer being formed by at least first and second distinct insulating sub-layers made of the second broad range temperature rated polymeric material and having the second color and a fourth color, respectively wherein the second and the fourth colors contrasting to each other configuration as taught by Ko because Ko teaches that such a configuration teaches a high voltage power cable (Fig 1) having improved physical properties such as heat resistance, prevents scorch defects by using stable crosslinking agents, and shortens the extrusion process (Paragraph 17).
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 HV electrical cables having multiple configurations.
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
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights