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 domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120. The PCT Application Number PCT/EP2023/072155, being filed on August 10, 2023.
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. 18/998,121, filed on January 23, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 23, 2025 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 1-3B and 5A-6B 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 4-8, the abstract contains a run on sentence, 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the elastic material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there has not been any mention of a plug in previous lines of the claim or other claims from which claim 10 depends. The applicant is required to amend the claim in order to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “elastic material”.
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) 1-5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (WO 2020/211319A, herein referred to as Liu). Liu discloses a power cable arrangement (Figs 1-5), that enhances the monitoring sensitivity, accuracy of the monitoring data, while also providing information support for the operation and maintenance of the electrical cable (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a power cable arrangement (Fig 3) comprising a power core (3-7) comprising one or more conductors (3), an intermediate layer (8) disposed about the power core (3-7), a water barrier layer (9) tightly arranged about the intermediate layer (8), and a moisture ingress detection device (1) arranged between the water barrier layer (9) and the intermediate layer (8) in direct contact with the water barrier layer (9, ie can be installed against the barrier layer, Paragraph 32), wherein the moisture ingress detection device (located at 1) comprising an elongated optical fiber (1) surrounded by a water-swellable material (2), wherein the water-swellable material (2) is arranged to expand upon contact with moisture and exert a pressure on the underlying optical fiber (1) sufficient to cause an observable change in the attenuation and/or propagation characteristics of the optical fiber (1, Paragraphs 13 & 41). With respect to claim 2, Liu discloses that a relative thickness of the moisture ingress detection device (located at 1) compared to the circumference of the water barrier layer (9) is such that no integrity-degrading bulging is caused in the water barrier layer (9) by the moisture ingress detection device (1, Fig 3). With respect to claim 3, Liu discloses that the power cable (Fig 3) may be a dynamic submarine power cable (ie submarine cable, Paragraph 32). With respect to claim 4, Liu discloses that the water swellable material (2) of the moisture ingress detection device (located at 1) is in direct contact with the water barrier layer (9, ie layer 3 is porous wherein water swellable material extends through to contact the barrier layer 3), and further wherein the pressure caused by expansion of the swellable material (2) is directed towards the optical fiber (1) due to the tightness of the arrangement of the water barrier layer (9) about the intermediate layer (9, Paragraph 41). With respect to claim 5, Liu discloses that the swellable material (2) is a swellable tape (ie material layer is wrapped around inner optical fiber (1), Paragraph 40). With respect to claim 8, Liu discloses that the moisture ingress detection device (located at 1) comprises an elongated shape following guide element (3) having one or more passages (as shown in Fig 2) in which is arranged swellable material-wrapped optical fiber (1), the shape following guide element (3) being in direct contact with the water barrier layer (9, ie can be installed against the barrier layer, Paragraph 32) and having a shape adapted conform to the curvature of the water barrier layer (9, as shown in Fig 4). With respect to claim 11, Liu discloses a method for detecting the ingress of moisture into a submarine cable (Fig 1) having a water barrier layer (9), comprising the steps of (a) providing a power cable arrangement comprising a power core (3-7) comprising one or more conductors (3), an intermediate layer (8) disposed about the power core (3-7), a water barrier layer (9) tightly arranged about the intermediate layer (8), and a moisture ingress detection device (1) arranged between the water barrier layer (9) and the intermediate layer (8) in direct contact with the water barrier layer (9, ie can be installed against the barrier layer, Paragraph 32), wherein the moisture ingress detection device (located at 1) comprising an elongated optical fiber (1) surrounded by a water-swellable material (2), wherein the water-swellable material (2) is arranged to expand upon contact with moisture and exert a pressure on the underlying optical fiber (1) sufficient to cause an observable change in the attenuation and/or propagation characteristics of the optical fiber (1, Paragraphs 13 & 41), monitoring the optical fiber (1) for changes in propagation and/or attenuation characteristics indicative of a localized deformation of the optical fiber (1, Paragraphs 13 & 41).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2020/211319A). Liu discloses a power cable arrangement (Figs 1-5), that enhances the monitoring sensitivity, accuracy of the monitoring data, while also providing information support for the operation and maintenance of the electrical cable (abstract), as applied to claims 1 & 8 above. With respect to claim 9, Liu discloses that the shape following guide element (3) being made of an elastic material that is water permeable (Paragraph 41) and adapted to bend to conform to the curvature of the water barrier layer (9, as shown in Fig 4).
However, Liu doesn’t necessarily disclose the shape following guide element being made of an elastic material and having a cross sectional shape that tapers from a lateral midpoint of maximum thickness to a narrower lateral ends (claim 10).
With respect to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify power cable arrangement of Liu to comprise the moisture ingress detection device to comprise the shape following guide element having a cross sectional shape that tapers from a lateral midpoint of maximum thickness to a narrower lateral ends since it has been held that a change in form cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from a prior art. In re Span-Deck Inc. vs. Fab-Con Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO Pat Num 2020/211319A) in view of Tadayuki (JP Pat Num 2004/071310). Liu discloses a power cable arrangement (Figs 1-5), that enhances the monitoring sensitivity, accuracy of the monitoring data, while also providing information support for the operation and maintenance of the electrical cable (abstract), as applied to claims 1 & 5 above.
While Liu discloses the swellable material being a swellable tape (2), Liu doesn’t necessarily disclose a length of tape being folded along its longitudinal axis about the optical fiber (claim 6), nor the optical fiber being sandwiched between two segments of the tape (claim 7).
Tadayuki teaches a power cable arrangement (Figs 1-3) that provides a water sealing cable that is easy to monitor integrity, evaluate, and maintain by evaluating the integrity of a water sealing layer, while also detecting water penetration into the cable core (abstract). Specifically, with respect to claims 6-7, Tadayuki teaches a power cable arrangement (Figs 3a-3b) comprising a power core (1) comprising one or more conductors (Fig 1) and a water proofing tape (3) surrounding the power core (1), wherein a moisture ingress detection device (6), which is a fiber optic (Paragraph 18) and is arranged between the water proofing tape (3) and the core (1, Fig 3b), wherein swellable tape (3) is folded along it longitudinal axis (Fig 3b) about the optical fiber (6) to sandwich the optical fiber (6) between two segments of the proofing tape (3, Fig 3b).
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 arrangement of Liu to comprise the water swellable tape to be folded configuration as taught by Tadayuki because Tadayuki teaches that such a configuration provides a power cable arrangement (Figs 1-3) that provides a water sealing cable that is easy to monitor integrity, evaluate, and maintain by evaluating the integrity of a water sealing layer, while also detecting water penetration into the cable core (abstract).
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 cable arrangements comprising water swellable material and moisture detection devices.
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
September 23, 2026
