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 foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application No. 18/968,513, filed on December 4, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 4, 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 1-2 and 5-6 lack 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 lines 1-6, the abstract contains run on sentences, which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should correct all instances of run on sentences, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the swelling layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a swelling layer in previous lines of the claims from which claim 5 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “the swelling layer”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the winding layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a winding layer in previous lines of the claims from which claim 6 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “the ”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the winding layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a winding layer in previous lines of the claims from which claim 8 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “the ”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the swelling layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a swelling layer in previous lines of the claims from which claim 8 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “the swelling layer”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the swelling layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a swelling layer in previous lines of the claims from which claim 18 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “the swelling layer”.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson (SE Pat Num 2151341). Johansson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-2), wherein shrink back of the insulation layer is eliminated or reduced (Page 2, lines 3-5). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Johansson discloses a power cable (1’, Fig 2) comprising a conductor (3), an insulation system (7, 9, 11) arranged around the conductor (3), a tape arrangement (4 & 5) forming an interface between the conductor (3) and the insulation system (7, 9, 11), wherein the tape arrangement having one or several layers (4 & 5) of which a first layer (4) has an inner facing surface (inner surface) arranged to face the conductor (3, Fig 2), wherein the inner facing surface (inner surface) of the first layer (4) of the tape arrangement (4 & 5) is coated with friction enhancing material (i.e. adhesive layer, the tape 4 is adhered to conductor (3), Page 6, lines 1-6). With respect to claim 2, Johansson discloses that the first layer (4) of the tape arrangement (4 & 5) is an innermost layer of the tape arrangement (4 & 5, Fig 2). With respect to claim 4, Johansson discloses that the tape arrangement (4 & 5) comprises a swelling layer (4, Page 6, line 7). With respect to claim 5, Johansson discloses that the swelling layer (4) is the innermost layer of the tape arrangement (4 & 5, Fig 2). With respect to claim 7, Johansson discloses that the tape arrangement (4 & 5) is a multi-layer tape arrangement (Fig 2) comprising the first layer (4) being the innermost layer of the tape arrangement (4 & 5), and a second layer (5) arranged radially outside of the first layer (4, Fig 2). With respect to claim 12, Johansson discloses that the conductor (3) is a profile wire conductor (i.e. stranded) having a central longitudinal axis and comprising stranded individual profile wires arranged in concentric wire layers around the central longitudinal axis (i.e. profile wire conductor, Col 4, lines 4-5). With respect to claim 13, Johansson discloses that the insulation system (7, 9, 11) comprises a semiconductive layer (7) arranged in contact with the tape arrangement (4 & 5). With respect to claim 14, Johansson discloses a method for producing at least a part of a power cable (Fig 2), wherein the method comprising providing a conductor (3), coating a first surface (inner surface of 4) of a tape arrangement (4 & 5) with a friction enhancing material (i.e. adhesive layer, the tape 4 is adhered to conductor (3), Page 6, lines 1-6), arranging the tape arrangement (4 & 5) onto the conductor (3) such that the first surface (inner surface of 4) becomes an inner facing surface facing the conductor (3, Fig 2). With respect to claim 15, Johansson discloses the method further comprising encasing the tape arrangement (4 & 5) with an insulation system (7, 9, 11). With respect to claim 17, Johansson discloses that the tape arrangement (4 & 5) comprises a swelling layer (4, Page 6, line 7).
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (SE Pat Num 2151341). Johansson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-2), wherein shrink back of the insulation layer is eliminated or reduced (Page 2, lines 3-5). With respect to claim 11, Johansson discloses that the tape arrangement (4 & 5) has an outer facing surface (outer surface) arranged in contact with the insulation system (7, 9, 11), and there exist friction coefficient between the coated friction enhancing material (i.e. adhesive layer, it tape 4 is adhered to conductor (3), Page 6, lines 1-6) and the conductor (3) and the outer facing surface (outer surface) and the insulation system (7, 9, 11).
However, Johansson doesn’t necessarily disclose the friction enhancing material comprises at least 25 wt.% of a polymer (claim 9), nor the friction coefficient between the coated friction enhancing material and the conductor is at least 0.25 (claim 10), nor the friction coefficient between the coated friction enhancing material and the conductor is lower than the friction coefficient between the outer facing surface and the insulation system (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power cable of Johansson to comprise the friction enhancing material comprises at least 25 wt.% of a polymer, the friction coefficient between the coated friction enhancing material and the conductor is at least 0.25 and the friction coefficient between the coated friction enhancing material and the conductor being lower than the friction coefficient between the outer facing surface and the insulation system, 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) 3, 6, 8, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (SE Pat Num 2151341) in view of Tanaka et al (JP Pat Num 10172358, herein referred to as Tanaka). Johansson discloses a power cable (Figs 1-2), wherein shrink back of the insulation layer is eliminated or reduced (Page 2, lines 3-5). With respect to claim 18, Johansson discloses that the swelling layer (4) is the innermost layer of the tape arrangement (4 & 5, Fig 2).
However, Johansson doesn’t necessarily disclose the tape arrangement comprises a winding layer arranged helically around the conductor (claims 3 & 16), nor the winding layer being the outermost layer of the tape arrangement (claims 6 & 19), nor the multi-layer tape arrangement comprises the winding layer and the swelling layer (claim 8).
Tanaka teaches a power cable (Figs 1 & 5A-5D) comprising a water stopping tape arrangement that absorbs water and swells to prevent water from flowing through gaps in known power cables when outside damage is done to the outer sheath (Paragraph 1), while also providing antibacterial characteristics, being resistant to dry heat, and resistant to humid heat (Paragraph 17). Specifically, with respect to claims 3, 6, 8, 16, & 19, Tanaka teaches a known power cable (Fig 1) comprising a conductor (14), an insulation system (16, 17, 18) arranged around the conductor (14), a tape arrangement (15) forming an interface between the conductor (14) and the insulation system (16, 17, 18), wherein the tape arrangement (as shown in Fig 5c) may having one or several layers (5, 1, 5) of which a first layer (5) has an inner facing surface (inner surface) arranged to face the conductor (14), wherein the tape arrangement (5, 1, 5) comprises a winding layer (1) and a swelling layer (5, 5) forming the tape arrangement (5, 1, 5) which is helically around the conductor (14, Paragraphs 20 & 48), wherein the winding layer (1 as shown in Fig 5D) may be the outermost layer (Fig 5D).
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 Johansson to comprise the laminate tape arrangement comprising a winding and water swellable layer configuration as taught by Tanaka because Tanaka teaches that such a configuration provides a power cable (Figs 1 & 5A-5D) comprising a water stopping tape arrangement that absorbs water and swells to prevent water from flowing through gaps in known power cables when outside damage is done to the outer sheath (Paragraph 1), while also providing antibacterial characteristics, being resistant to dry heat, and resistant to humid heat (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 power cables having different 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 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights