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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-6, 10, 16-17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 2-6, 10, 16-17 and 19 refer back to previous step or steps. Examiner suggests adding prefix “the” or “said” before step/steps to restore antecedent clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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(s) 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund et al. (US 20140124238; hereinafter Englund) in view of DE RAI et al. (US 20200312488).
Regarding claim 1, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 a method of determining compatibility between a polymeric electrical insulation material for an insulation layer of a high voltage power cable and a foreign material, the method comprising:
a) preparing a test sample (5; fig. 2; para. 41 - a sample of the polymer composition) from A) an insulation plate consisting of the polymeric electrical insulation material (para. 12 – insulation of electrical device cables), and B) the foreign material (para. 12 – ion exchanger additive),
b) applying a voltage over the test sample (para. 51 - HV DC cables the operating voltage is defined herein as the electric voltage between ground and the conductor of the high voltage cable),
c) determining a conductivity of the test sample based on measurements taken during step b) (para. 64 - providing a low, electrical conductivity of a polymer composition of a DC power cable),
d) comparing the conductivity of the test sample with a reference conductivity (table 1; para. 27 - increase the electrical DC conductivity of the polymer which is highly undesirable for the power cable layer material and limits the use of the polyolefins produced by an olefin polymerization catalyst in the power cables in the HV and EHV direct current (DC) cable applications), and
e) concluding whether the foreign material is compatible with the polymeric electrical insulation material based on the comparison in step d) (para. 27 - polymer composition of the invention captures the undesirable ionic catalyst residues effectively and lowers markedly the electrical DC conductivity of a polyolefin produced by an olefin polymerization catalyst… undesirable effect on electrical DC conductivity can be avoided… advantageous also for polyolefins, which have been produced by an olefin catalyst, and particularly for their use in cable applications - Englund’s usability teaching can be interpreted as compatibility).
Englund does not teach explicitly foreign material is compatible.
However, DE RAI teaches in figure(s) 1-2 foreign material is compatible (para. 31 - improves the affinity between the outer jacket and the external semi-conductive layer, as the base polymer material of the latter is the same, similar or chemically compatible with the base polymer material typically used in the art to make the jacket).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Englund by having foreign material is compatible as taught by DE RAI in order to provide use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way as evidenced by "provides a cable with an external semi-conductive layer, which has reduced cost and improved compatibility of the materials of the jacket" (para. 19).
Regarding claim 2, Englund in view of DE RAI teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step e) involves concluding that the foreign material is compatible with the polymeric electrical insulation material in case the conductivity deviates with at most a predetermined amount from the reference conductivity (table 1, para. 39 of Englund - polymer composition has preferably an electrical conductivity of 50 fS/m or less; para. 40 of DE RAI - external semi-conductive layer of the present cable can have an electrical conductivity of 10.sup.−1 S/cm (corresponding to a resistivity of 10.sup.−1 Ω*m) at most) and otherwise concluding that the foreign material is non-compatible with the polymeric electrical insulation material (para. 31 - improves the affinity between the outer jacket and the external semi-conductive layer, as the base polymer material of the latter is the same, similar or chemically compatible with the base polymer material typically used in the art to make the jacket.).
Regarding claim 3, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, steps b) and c) are performed in a conductivity cell (para. 199 - test cell for conductivity measurement).
Regarding claim 4, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in step a) the insulation plate is set in direct contact with the foreign material (para. 37 - polymer composition may comprise further components other than the polymer (a) and the ion exchanger additive (b), such as further additives which may, as the ion exchanger additive (b), optionally be added in a mixture with a carrier polymer, i.e. in so called master batch).
Regarding claim 5, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein step a) further involves pressing together the insulation plate and the foreign material in a press moulding machine (para. 195 - compression moulding).
Regarding claim 6, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein step a) involves heat treating the insulation plate and the foreign material when they are in direct contact (para. 159 - Mixing in the preceding separate mixer can be carried out by mixing with or without external heating (heating with an external source) of the component(s)).
Regarding claim 7, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the heat treatment involves heating at a temperature in the range of 70-110°C (paras. 202,199 - temperature was 70.degree. C …temperature is increased and reaches 180.degree. C. after 5 min. ).
Regarding claim 8, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the heat treatment involves subjecting the insulation plate and the foreign material to temperature cycles between room temperature and said temperature in the range of 70-110°C (para. 199 - temperature is decreased using the cooling rate 15.degree. C./min until room temperature is reached).
Regarding claim 9, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reference conductivity is the conductivity of a non-contaminated reference sample of the polymeric electrical insulation material (0 wt% for ion exchanger additive for reference sample in table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an electric field over the test sample in step b) is in a range of 15-50 kV/mm (paras. 51,60,202 - DC power cable operating at voltages higher than 10 kV, such as a HV DC cable…even at voltages of 50 kV…30kv/mm).
Regarding claim 11, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the insulation plate has a thickness in a range of 0.5-2 mm (para. 171 - thickness of the insulation layer of the DC power cable (B), more preferably of the HV DC power cable (B), is typically 2 mm or more).
Regarding claim 12, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the foreign material is one of a polymeric material (para. 126 - polymer composition comprising: (a) a polyethylene produced in the presence of an olefin polymerisation catalyst; and (b) an ion exchanger additive), a lubricating material, a metal, and a semiconductive material.
Regarding claim 14, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymeric electrical insulation material is a DC insulation material (para. 69 - an insulation layer of a cable (A) or (B), preferably of a DC power cable (A) or (B)).
Regarding claim 15, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the DC insulation material is designed for voltages greater than 300 kV (para. 60 - HV DC power cable (B) applications operating from 75 to 400 kV).
Regarding claim 16, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 2, steps b) and c) are performed in a conductivity cell (para. 199 - test cell for conductivity measurement).
Regarding claim 17, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein in step a) the insulation plate is set in direct contact with the foreign material (para. 37 - polymer composition may comprise further components other than the polymer (a) and the ion exchanger additive (b), such as further additives which may, as the ion exchanger additive (b), optionally be added in a mixture with a carrier polymer, i.e. in so called master batch).
Regarding claim 18, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the reference conductivity is the conductivity of a non-contaminated reference sample of the polymeric electrical insulation material (0 wt% for ion exchanger additive for reference sample in table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein an electric field over the test sample in step b) is in a range of 15-50 kV/mm (paras. 51,60,202 - DC power cable operating at voltages higher than 10 kV, such as a HV DC cable…even at voltages of 50 kV…30 v/mm).
Regarding claim 20, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the insulation plate has a thickness in a range of 0.5-2 mm (para. 171 - thickness of the insulation layer of the DC power cable (B), more preferably of the HV DC power cable (B), is typically 2 mm or more).
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund in view of DE RAI, and further in view of Antonischki et al. (US 20230402208).
Regarding claim 13, Englund teaches in figure(s) 1-2 the method as claimed in claim 1,
Englund does not teach explicitly wherein the foreign material is a conductor tape or a swelling tape.
However, Antonischki teaches in figure(s) 1-3 wherein the foreign material is a conductor tape or a swelling tape (para. 11 – a layer of swelling tape radially inside the mechanical support layer; clm. 9 - mechanical support layer is an extruded layer or is in the form of tape wrapped around the insulation system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Englund by having wherein the foreign material is a conductor tape or a swelling tape as taught by Antonischki in order to provide "compression element is a cord or tape wound radially outside the mechanical support layer" (para. 16).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KOELBLIN et. al. (US 20200251251) discloses “An electric cable includes at least one polymer layer obtained from a polymer composition having at least one polypropylene-based thermoplastic polymer material and at least one oxygen-containing compound having a melting temperature of about 110° C. or higher”.
Calebrese et. al. (US 20190267155) discloses “An insulative assembly includes an insulative mica-based carrier film and first and second resistive grading layers joined to opposite sides of the mica-based carrier film.”.
Koziol et. al. (US 20140231118) discloses “Materials And Methods For Insulation Of Conducting Fibres, And Insulated Products”.
Englund et. al. (US 20130081854) discloses “a polymer composition with improved DC electrical properties in a power cable layer”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. 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.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights