Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. 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 parent Application No. NO20231276, filed on 11/23/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/24 and 5/23/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domoto, Akira (WO 2018150717, provided in the IDS) in view of Jacques et al. (US 2024/0367417). (“Akira” and “Jacques”).
6. Regarding claim 1, Akira teaches A test setup comprising a first planar electrode, a second planar electrode, and layers of a sample of an electric cable, wherein at least one layer of the sample is arranged between the first planar electrode and the second planar electrode, as inner layer(s), to form a stack, (wherein said stack is sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample) [Figures 1-8, a test setup is shown comprising a first planar electrode 520, a second planar electrode 510, and layer(s) of a sample of an electric cable 20, the layer of the sample 20 is arranged between the first and the second planar electrodes forming a stack].
Akira does not explicitly teach wherein said stack is sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample.
However, Jacques teaches wherein said stack is sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample [Figure 6, the stack (2, 3, 4) is shown sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample, see outer layers 5, 6].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira with Jacques. Doing so would allow Akira to comprise outer layers of the sample which would help connection wither external unit for testing.
7. Regarding claim 2, Akira teaches wherein the sample of an electric cable is selected from the group consisting of a press molded plate sample, an extruded tape sample, and a peeling sample [Figures 1-8, see sample 20].
8. Regarding claim 3, Akira teaches wherein the test setup further comprises a guard ring being connected to ground potential which guard ring being an electrical conductor surrounding in plane the second planar electrode, wherein the guard ring has no electrical contact to the second planar electrode, wherein the guard ring and the second planar electrode are arranged
between the at least one inner layer of the sample and at least one outer layer of the sample [Figures 1-8, the test setup comprising a guard ring 530 is shown, the guard ring 530 having no electrical contact to the second electrode 510].
9. Regarding claim 4, Akira teaches wherein the first planar electrode, the second planar electrode and the layers of the sample each comprise a rim, wherein the rim of the first planar electrode and rim of the second planar electrode are within the rim of the layers of the sample when viewed in projection perpendicular to the plane of the layers of the sample [Figures 1-8, the planar electrodes 520, 510 comprise a rim].
10. Regarding claim 5, Akira teaches wherein the first planar electrode and the second planar electrode are congruent [Figures 1-8, the first and the second planar electrodes 520, 510 are shown].
11. Regarding claim 7, Akira teaches wherein the guard ring is connected to two wires [Figures 1-8, see guard ring 530].
12. Regarding claim 8, Akira teaches wherein the layers of the sample have a circular shape, and/or wherein the planar electrodes have a circular shape [Figures 1-8, the layers of the sample/ electrodes have a circular shape].
13. Claims 6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira (WO 2018150717) in view of Jacques (US 2024/0367417) in further view of Gu, Ja-yoon (KR 101489588) (“Gu”).
14. Regarding claim 6, Akira teaches the test setup.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the outer layer of the sample attached to the first planar electrode comprises at least one through-hole, and the outer layer attached to the second planar electrode comprises at least two through-holes, preferably at least three through-holes.
However, Gu teaches wherein the outer layer of the sample attached to the first planar electrode comprises at least one through-hole, and the outer layer attached to the second planar electrode comprises at least two through-holes, preferably at least three through-holes [Figure 1, planar electrodes (upper and lower electrodes) comprise through-holes].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise electrodes comprising through holes which would allow jaws/brackets to go through in order to create an enclosed space.
15. Regarding claim 9, Akira teaches a test fixture comprising the setup.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach A test fixture comprising the test setup according to claim 1 and two jaws, wherein the two jaws are mechanically connected to one another.
However, Gu teaches A test fixture comprising the test setup according to claim 1 and two jaws, wherein the two jaws are mechanically connected to one another [Figures 1-8, the test setup is arranged between two jaws/brackets mechanically connected to one another; see Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise jaws/brackets to house the test setup which would provide a secured setup.
16. Regarding claim 10, Akira teaches a test fixture comprising the setup.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the two jaws exert a compression force to the test setup.
However, Gu teaches wherein the two jaws exert a compression force to the test setup [Figure 1, the jaws exert a compression force].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise jaws/brackets to house the test setup and apply inward force for proper contact for testing.
17. Regarding claim 11, Akira teaches a test fixture comprising the setup.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the test fixture further comprises springs connecting the two jaws which exert the compression force to the test setup.
However, Gu teaches wherein the two jaws exert a compression force to the test setup [Figure 1, the spring jaws exert a compression force; see Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise spring jaws/brackets to house the test setup and apply inward force for proper contact for testing.
18. Regarding claim 12, Akira teaches a test fixture comprising the setup.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the two yaws comprise through-holes communicating with the through-holes of the outer layers of the sample.
However, Gu teaches wherein the two yaws comprise through-holes communicating with the through-holes of the outer layers of the sample [Figure 1, through-holes are shown].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise jaws comprising through-holes which would help with connection.
19. Claim 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira (WO 2018150717) in view of Jacques (US 2024/0367417) in further view of Gu (KR 101489588, provided in the IDS).
20. Regarding claim 13, Akira teaches A method of analysing an electrical property of a sample of an electrical cable, wherein the method comprises the steps of providing layers of the sample of the electrical cable; making a stack of at least one layer of the sample with a first planar electrode on one side of the at least one layer of the sample and the second planar electrode and the guard ring on the other side of the at least one layer of the sample; … providing an electrical connection to the first planar electrode, an electrical connection to the second planar electrode, and an electrical connection to the guard ring; measuring the electrical property [Figures 1-8, a method of analysing an electrical property of a sample of an electrical cable is taught, a stacked if formed of the sample 20, first planar electrodes 520, second planar electrode 510, the guard ring 530 is formed as shown; an electrical connection is obtained by providing voltage and the electrical property of the sample is inspected].
Akira does not explicitly teach arranging a first outer layer of the sample to the first planar electrode and arranging a second outer layer of the sample to the second planar electrode and the guard ring to obtain the test setup; arranging the test setup between two jaws, the two jaws being mechanically connected to one another.
However, Jacques teaches arranging a first outer layer of the sample to the first planar electrode and arranging a second outer layer of the sample to the second planar electrode and the guard ring to obtain the test setup [Figure 6, the stack (2, 3, 4) is shown sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample 2, see outer layers 5, 6].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira with Jacques. Doing so would allow Akira to comprise outer layers of the sample which would help connection wither external unit for testing.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach arranging the test setup between two jaws, the two jaws being mechanically connected to one another.
However, Gu teaches arranging the test setup between two jaws, the two jaws being mechanically connected to one another [Figures 1-8, the test setup is arranged between two jaws/brackets mechanically connected to one another; see Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise jaws/brackets to house the test setup which would provide a secured setup.
21. Regarding claim 14, Akira teaches wherein measuring the electrical property comprises measuring the electric conductivity of the sample of the electric cable, preferably of a peeling sample of the electric cable, more preferred of a peeling sample of an extruded HVDC cable [Figures 1-8, measuring the electrical property is taught].
22. Regarding claim 15, Akira teaches wherein measuring the electrical property comprises measuring the space charge of the sample of the electric cable, preferably of a peeling sample of the electric cable, more preferred of a peeling sample of an extruded HVDC cable [Figures 1-8, measuring the electrical property is taught].
23. Regarding claim 16, Akira teaches wherein the step of providing the electrical connection to the guard ring comprises electrically connecting the guard ring to ground potential [Figures 1-8, the electrical connection to the guard ring is taught].
24. Regarding claim 17, Akira teaches the method.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises the step of making at least one through-hole in the first outer layer of the sample and at least two through-holes in the second outer layer of the sample.
However, Gu teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of making at least one through-hole in the first outer layer of the sample and at least two through-holes in the second outer layer of the sample [Figure 1, through-holes are shown].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise outer layer comprising through-holes which would help with connection.
25. Regarding claim 18, Akira teaches wherein the step of providing the electrical connection to the first planar electrode, the electrical connection to the second planar electrode, and the electrical connection to the guard ring comprises providing the electrical connection to the first planar electrode via a wire laid through the through- hole of the first outer layer, providing the electrical connection to the second planar electrode via a wire laid through the through-hole of the second outer layer, and providing the electrical connection to the guard ring via a wire laid through the through-hole of the second outer layer [Figures 1-8, the electrical connection is shown].
26. Regarding claim 19, Regarding claim 17, Akira teaches the method.
Akira and Jacques does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises the step of making at least three through-holes in the second outer layer of the sample.
However, Gu teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of making at least three through-holes in the second outer layer of the sample [Figure 1, through-holes are shown].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Akira and Jacques with Gu. Doing so would allow Akira and Jacques to comprise outer layer comprising through-holes which would help with connection.
27. Regarding claim 20, Akira teaches wherein the step of providing the electrical connection to the second planar electrode and the electrical connection to the guard ring comprises providing the electrical connection to the second planar electrode via a wire laid through the first through-hole of the second outer layer, and providing two electrical connections to the guard ring via a first wire laid through the second through- hole of the second outer layer and a second wire laid through the third through-hole of the second outer layer, wherein the method comprises a step of testing the electrical conductivity through the first wire, the guard ring and the second wire [Figures 1-8, the electrical connection is shown].
28. Regarding claim 21, Akira teaches wherein the step of providing layers of the sample of the electrical cable is performed by punching the layers of the sample making use of a template [Figures 1-8, setup is shown].
29. Regarding claim 22, Akira teaches wherein the method is performed by use of a test setup having a first planar electrode, a second planar electrode, and layers of a sample of an electric cable, where at least one layer of the sample is arranged between the first planar electrode and the second planar electrode, as inner layer(s), to form a stack, wherein said stack is sandwiched between layers of the sample as outer layers of the sample [Figures 1-8, the setup is shown].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gravermann et al. (US 9,739,805), Figures 1-7 shows a conductor assembly comprising inner conductor, outer conductor, electrodes and so on arranged in a similar manner to that of the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 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 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights