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 filed on December 4, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 line 2, change “below 0.05g/” to --below 0.05 g/ (m²*24 h)--.
In claim 16 line 2, change “below 0.05g/” to --below 0.05 g/ (m²*24 h)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson (US 11,631,505) in view of Huo et al (CN 103612461 B; hereinafter Huo).
Regarding claim 1, Johanson discloses a submarine power cable (see figure 2b) comprising: a conductor (2); an insulation system (see figure 2b) including at least a first semiconducting layer (7) provided around the conductor (2), and an insulation layer (3) provided around the first semiconducting layer (7); a water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) surrounding the insulation system (see figure 1); wherein the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) is obtained from a composition comprising a base polymer (10) and at least an additive being graphene, graphene or graphite nanoplatelets, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide and/or graphite (column 7 lines 30-47) ; but Johanson lacks the water barrier layer is obtained from a composition comprising a base polymer (10) in an amount of at least 50 wt% and an additive being graphene, graphene or graphite nanoplatelets, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide and/or graphite in an amount of between 0.05 wt% and 10 wt%, preferably between 0.25 wt% and 6 wt %, more preferably between 0.5 wt% and 2 wt%, based on the weight of the composition. Huo teaches a graphene composite semiconducting tape for HVAC power cable (see figure 1; paragraph 0004), comprising a substrate (1), wherein both sides are coated with a semiconductive adhesive layers (2; water barrier layer), wherein the adhesive layer comprises 0.05 wt% and 10 wt% of graphene power (i.e. 4-8%, Paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make Johanson water barrier layer with a composition comprising a base polymer (10) in an amount of at least 50 wt% and an additive being graphene, graphene or graphite nanoplatelets, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide and/or graphite in an amount of between 0.05 wt% and 10 wt%, preferably between 0.25 wt% and 6 wt %, more preferably between 0.5 wt% and 2 wt%, based on the weight of the composition as taught by Huo to improve the shield and homogenization of the electrical field effect of the cable. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding claim 2, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) is in direct contact with the insulation system (3, see figure 2b).
Regarding claim 3, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) has a water permeability; but Johanson lacks the water permeability being of below 0.05 g / (m²*24 h). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Johanson’s water barrier layer having a permeability below 0.05 g / (m²*24 h) to enhance the cable water protection capabilities. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding claim 4, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the composition of the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) comprises at least one of the following additional components: an antioxidant, an UV stabilizer, a plasticizer, carbon black, a filler material, slip additives, a pigment (column 7 lines 30-47).
Regarding claim 5, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the base polymer (10) of the composition of the water barrier layer is a thermoplastic polymer (column 6 lines 19-22; low density polyethylene) .
Regarding claim 6, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the base polymer (10) of the composition of the water barrier layer is HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE or PP (column 6 lines 19-22; low density polyethylene).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the additive of the composition is in the form of composites or nanocomposites and/or particles or nanoparticles (as taught by Huo; paragraph 0031; particles).
Regarding claim 8, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), further comprising a polymeric jacket (5) provided around the insulation system (3).
Regarding claim 9, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) is arranged in between the insulation system (3) and the polymeric jacket (5), or wherein the polymeric jacket forms the water barrier layer.
Regarding claim 10, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), further comprising a second semiconducting layer (8).
Regarding claim 11, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the second semiconducting layer (8) is comprised in the insulation system (3; see figure 2b).
Regarding claim 12, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the second semiconducting layer (8) forms the water barrier layer (see figure 2b).
Regarding claim 13, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the power cable does not comprise a metallic sheath of lead (column 7 lines 30-48) arranged radially outside of the insulation system (7,3,8).
Regarding claim 14, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), being a lead-free power cable (column 7 lines 30-48).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), being a HVDC power cable or a HVAC power cable (as taught by Huo).
Regarding claim 16, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) has a water permeability; but Johanson lacks the water permeability being of below 0.05 g / (m²*24 h). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Johanson’s water barrier layer having a permeability below 0.05 g / (m²*24 h) to enhance the cable water protection capabilities. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 17, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the composition of the water barrier layer (4 and 9-11) comprises at least one of the following additional components: an antioxidant, an UV stabilizer, a plasticizer, carbon black, a filler material, slip additives, a pigment (column 7 lines 30-47).
Regarding claim 18, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the base polymer (10) of the composition of the water barrier layer is a thermoplastic polymer (column 6 lines 19-22; low density polyethylene) .
Regarding claim 19, Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the base polymer (10) of the composition of the water barrier layer is HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE or PP (column 6 lines 19-22; low density polyethylene).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Johanson discloses the submarine power cable (see figure 2b), wherein the additive of the composition is in the form of composites or nanocomposites and/or particles or nanoparticles (as taught by Huo; paragraph 0031).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koelblin et al (US 9,058,917), Furuheim et al (US 9,029,705), Guissani (US 4,536,610), Jackson (US 4,278,835), Jung et al (US 12,640,284), Mattson et al (US 12,573,526), Langstrom et al (US 12,417,863), Thyrvin et al (US 12,367,991), Jorgensen et al (US 12,136,503) and Ghorbani et al (US 10,679,772) disclose a submarine power cable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Angel R. Estrada at telephone number (571) 272-1973. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30am -5:00pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. 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 USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
September 4, 2026
/ANGEL R ESTRADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights