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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (page 2), filed 07/27/2026, with respect to claims 11-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-14 has been withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) in view of Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432).
Regarding claim 1, Ferraro et al. teaches an insulator (100) for a cable termination assembly comprising: a main body (102) of insulating material extending along a longitudinal direction (B-B’) and having a cylindrically symmetrical shape with a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite to each other (as shown in fig. 2A and disclosed in para. 0037 and 0043), the main body (102) being configured to be fitted on a power cable (as disclosed in para. 0032 and 0045); and a ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108, as shown in fig. 2A-2B and disclosed in para. 0037 and 0043) and made of a mesh of conducting material integrated in the main body (102) at a predefined distance from the first longitudinal end (as disclosed in para. 0047), the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) being configured to be coupled (using 206, as shown in fig. 2A) to an external voltage detector (as disclosed in para. 0043).
Ferraro et al. fails to specifically teach a metallic insert comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the metallic insert is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor of the power cable on the first side and to a bare conductor on the second side. However, Iadanza et al. teaches a metallic insert (7, 103) comprising a first side and a second side (as shown in fig. 1-2), wherein the metallic insert (7, 103) is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor (101) of the power cable (100) on the first side and to a bare conductor (9) on the second side (as shown in fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the metallic insert comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the metallic insert is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor of the power cable on the first side and to a bare conductor on the second side as taught by Iadanza et al. with the invention of Ferraro et al. in order to accurately and securely transmit current from one end to another.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the ring- shaped electrode (106 and 108) is provided of at least one protrusion (206) made of conducting material and extending from the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) to an outer surface of the main body (206 electrically connects 202 externally to voltage readout circuitry, as disclosed in para. 0043).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) comprises a metallic mesh plate shaped as a ring (as disclosed in para. 0047).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the main body (102) is made of epoxy resin (as disclosed in para. 0040).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) and Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Siebens (US PGPUB 2019/0107563).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the at least one protrusion (206) made of conducting material (206 electrically connects 202 externally to voltage readout circuitry, as disclosed in para. 0043).
The combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one protrusion has, at its free end, a threaded bush. However, Siebens teaches wherein the at least one protrusion (152) has, at its free end, a threaded bush (155) (as shown in fig. 1A and disclosed in para. 0026).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the at least one protrusion has, at its free end, a threaded bush as taught by Siebens with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. in order to securely attach the insulator to an external device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) and Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of STOLLWERCK et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0395326).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the ring-shaped electrode has a folded edge proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end. However, STOLLWERCK et al. teaches wherein the ring-shaped electrode (220) has a folded edge (228) proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end (as shown in fig. 1B and disclosed in para. 0067).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the ring-shaped electrode has a folded edge proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end as taught by STOLLWERCK et al. with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. in order to have electrical stress control (STOLLWERCK et al. para. 0067).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) and Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ROMMEL et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0145631).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the mesh of conducting material has a cover factor comprised between 0.2 and 0.5. However, ROMMEL et al. teaches wherein the mesh of conducting material has a cover factor comprised between 0.2 and 0.5 (as disclosed in para. 0028).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the mesh of conducting material has a cover factor comprised between 0.2 and 0.5 as taught by ROMMEL et al. with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. in order to better integrate the mesh to the insulating body.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) and Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Czyzewski et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0219323).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. fails to specifically teach a termination assembly for a power cable comprising: an electric field control element fitted to the power cable; and an insulator according to claim 1, wherein the insulator is coupled to the electric field control element so as to surround it at least partially. However, Czyzewski et al. teaches a termination assembly (10) for a power cable (29) comprising: an electric field control element (6) fitted to the power cable (29) (as shown in fig. 1); and an insulator (1), wherein the insulator (1) is coupled to the electric field control element (6) so as to surround it at least partially (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a termination assembly for a power cable comprising: an electric field control element fitted to the power cable; and an insulator according to claim 1, wherein the insulator is coupled to the electric field control element so as to surround it at least partially as taught by Czyzewski et al. with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. in order to achieve minimal interface pressure while having a compact overall design.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Czyzewski et al. teaches the limitations of claim 9, in addition, Czyzewski et al. teaches a Gas Insulated Substations termination (as disclosed in para. 0002) comprising: a termination assembly (10) according to claim 9; a tubular casing (21) configured to be fixed to the insulator (1) and to house the insulator (as shown in fig. 1); and a bare conductor (32) configured to be installed within the tubular casing (21) and electrically coupled to an electric conductor of a power cable (29) (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a Gas Insulated Substations termination comprising: a termination assembly according to claim 9; a tubular casing configured to be fixed to the insulator and to house the insulator; and a bare conductor configured to be installed within the tubular casing and electrically coupled to an electric conductor of a power cable as taught by Czyzewski et al. with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al. and Iadanza et al. in order to protect and shield the Gas Insulated Substations termination from external forces.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499) in views of Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) and Stollwerck et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0115600).
Regarding claim 15, Ferraro et al. teaches a method for monitoring a cable termination assembly comprising: coupling a ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) of an insulator (100) for the cable termination assembly applied on a power cable to a voltage detector (as shown in fig. 6), the insulator (100) comprising: a main body (102) of insulating material extending along a longitudinal direction (B-B’) and having a cylindrically symmetrical shape with a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite to each other (as shown in fig. 2A and disclosed in para. 0037 and 0043), the main body (102) comprising an inner opening for receiving the power cable (as disclosed in para. 0032 and 0045); and a ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108, as shown in fig. 2A-2B and disclosed in para. 0037 and 0043) and made of a mesh of conducting material integrated in the main body (102) at a predefined distance from the first longitudinal end (as disclosed in para. 0047), the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) being configured to be coupled (using 206, as shown in fig. 2A) to an external voltage detector (as disclosed in para. 0043).
Ferraro et al. fails to specifically teach a metallic insert comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the metallic insert is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor of the power cable on the first side and to a bare conductor on the second side; detecting a voltage signal with the voltage detector; and analyzing the voltage signal through the voltage detector and based thereon determining when the power cable is under voltage or detecting the presence of partial discharge. However, Iadanza et al. teaches a metallic insert (7, 103) comprising a first side and a second side (as shown in fig. 1-2), wherein the metallic insert (7, 103) is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor (101) of the power cable (100) on the first side and to a bare conductor (9) on the second side (as shown in fig. 1-2) and Stollwerck et al. teaches detecting a voltage signal with the voltage detector (as disclosed in para. 0092-0099); and analyzing the voltage signal through the voltage detector and based thereon determining if the power cable is under voltage or detecting the presence of partial discharge (as disclosed in para. 0092-0099).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a metallic insert comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the metallic insert is configured to be electrically coupled to an exposed electric conductor of the power cable on the first side and to a bare conductor on the second side; detecting a voltage signal with the voltage detector; and analyzing the voltage signal through the voltage detector and based thereon determining if the power cable is under voltage or detecting the presence of partial discharge as taught by Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. with the invention of Ferraro et al. in order to accurately and securely transmit current from one end to another and avoid electrical damage the cable termination system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the ring- shaped electrode (106 and 108) is provided of at least one protrusion (206) made of conducting material and extending from the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) to an outer surface of the main body (206 electrically connects 202 externally to voltage readout circuitry, as disclosed in para. 0043).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the ring-shaped electrode (106 and 108) comprises a metallic mesh plate shaped as a ring (as disclosed in para. 0047).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499), Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) and Stollwerck et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0115600) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Siebens (US PGPUB 2019/0107563).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Ferraro et al. teaches wherein the at least one protrusion (206) made of conducting material (206 electrically connects 202 externally to voltage readout circuitry, as disclosed in para. 0043).
The combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one protrusion has, at its free end, a threaded bush. However, Siebens teaches wherein the at least one protrusion (152) has, at its free end, a threaded bush (155) (as shown in fig. 1A and disclosed in para. 0026).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the at least one protrusion has, at its free end, a threaded bush as taught by Siebens with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. in order to securely attach the insulator to an external device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0356499), Iadanza et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0336432) and Stollwerck et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0115600) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of STOLLWERCK et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0395326).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the ring-shaped electrode has a folded edge proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end. However, STOLLWERCK et al. teaches wherein the ring-shaped electrode (220) has a folded edge (228) proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end (as shown in fig. 1B and disclosed in para. 0067).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the ring-shaped electrode has a folded edge proximal with respect to the first longitudinal end as taught by STOLLWERCK et al. with the invention of the combination of Ferraro et al., Iadanza et al. and Stollwerck et al. in order to have electrical stress control (STOLLWERCK et al. para. 0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 11-14, the prior art fails to specifically teach a cable termination system comprising: an insulator comprising: a main body of insulating material extending along a longitudinal direction and having a cylindrically symmetrical shape with a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite to each other, the main body configured to receive the power cable, and a ring-shaped electrode made of a mesh of conducting material integrated in the main body at a predefined distance from the first longitudinal end, the ring-shaped electrode being configured to be coupled to an external voltage detector, wherein the insulator is coupled to the electric field control element so as to surround it at least partially, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights