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 .
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 13 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Is the specific gas (noble gas or nitrogen) required? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al. (2023/0378740A1) in view of Janu (Diffusion Bonding of Copper, International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Vol 8(3), May-June 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Johanson discloses a method of jointing a first subsea cable 20 to a second subsea cable 40, the first subsea cable having a first water barrier layer 23 surrounding a first cable core 21 and the second subsea cable 40 having a second water barrier layer 43 surrounding a second cable core 41, the method comprising: jointing the first and second water barrier layers (paragraph 0032, 0090, 0104-0111, abstract).
Johanson does not disclose solid state diffusion process, but Johanson does disclose that the jointing can be done by welding, soldering, or adhesive (paragraph 0043). This would indicate that Johanson is open to different types of joining. Johanson discloses that the water barrier layers can be made from metal such as copper (paragraph 0090). Janu discloses that it is known to join similar or dissimilar metals such as copper metal by solid-state diffusion process (diffusion bonding is a type of welding) (see Diffusion and Experiment). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known method such as solid-state diffusion bonding because it is well-known to prevent shrinkage, warpage, cracking and distortion caused by traditional welding with high temperatures. It also is known to create a leak-tight seal.
Regarding claim 2, Johanson with Janu disclose using a solid-state diffusion process to form a first bond between an intermediate water barrier and the first water barrier layer while a portion of the first water barrier is in contact with the intermediate water barrier (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Johanson with Janu discloses using a solid-state diffusion process to form a second bond between the intermediate water barrier and the second water barrier layer while a portion of the second water barrier layer is in contact with the intermediate water barrier (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Johanson does not specifically state that the first bond forms a continuous seal around first and second water barrier layers, respectively. However, it would have been obvious for there to be a continuous seal around the first and second water barriers to prevent water from coming in contact with the cable joint.
Regarding claim 5, Johanson discloses that at least one of the first and second water barrier layers, and/or the intermediate water barrier, comprises a metal (paragraphs 0085-0090).
Regarding claim 6, Johanson discloses that the metal is lead, copper, nickel, tin or titanium (paragraphs 0085-0090).
Regarding claim 7, Johanson discloses that each of the intermediate water barrier and the first and second water barrier layers comprise the metal (paragraphs 0085-0090).
Regarding claim 8, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond, or the second bond, comprises applying a pressure that is greater than atmospheric pressure (see Experiment).
Regarding claim 9, Janu discloses that the pressure is 1 Megapascal or greater (see Experiment).
Regarding claim 10, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond, and the second bond, comprises heating at least one of the portions of the respective first or second water barrier layer and the intermediate water barrier that are in contact with one another to a temperature of greater than 50% of the melting point of the intermediate water barrier (see Diffusion).
Regarding claim 12, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond, and/or the second bond, comprises cleaning at least the portions of the respective first or second water barrier layers and the intermediate water barrier that contact one another prior to forming the respective bond (polishing the surfaces to prepare for welding) (see Experiment).
Regarding claim 13, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond, and the second bond, comprises replacing a portion of air surrounding the joint with an inert gas (see Experiment)
Regarding claim 14, Johanson does not specifically disclose jointing the first and second cable cores before jointing the first and second water barrier layers. However, based on the structure and location of the cable cores and the water barriers it would have been obvious to join the cable cores first to ensure that the inside portion of the product is secure and properly joined before joining the outside layers.
Regarding claim 16, Johanson discloses that at least one of the first and second water barrier layers comprises a metal (paragraphs 0085-0090).
Regarding claim 17, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond comprises applying a pressure that is greater than atmospheric pressure (see Diffusion and Experiment).
Regarding claim 18, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond comprises heating at least one of the portions of the respective first or second water barrier layer and the intermediate water barrier that are in contact with one another to a temperature of greater than 50% of the melting point of the intermediate water barrier (see Diffusion and Experiment).
Regarding claim 20, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond comprises cleaning at least the portions of the respective first or second water barrier layers and the intermediate water barrier that contact one another prior to forming the respective bond (polishing the surface to prepare for welding (see Experiment)
Regarding claim 21, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond comprises replacing a portion of air surrounding the joint with an inert gas (see Experiment).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al. (2023/0378740A1) in view of Janu (Diffusion Bonding of Copper, International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Vol 8(3), May-June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behnke et al. (2022/0396857A1).
Regarding claim 11, Janu discloses heating, applying pressure and cooling. The bonding time is 45 minutes at the high temperature and then cooling for 30 minutes (see Experiment). Janu does not disclose applying pressure for at least 1 hour and less than 24 hours. However, Bahnke discloses pressure welding and during the cooling adjusting the pressure to account for shrinkage (paragraph 0033). This would indicate that the pressure is still being applied during the cooling step. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to maintain a pressure during cooling to prevent misalignment or gaps to form at the joint prior to the joint being fully cooled.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al. (2023/0378740A1) in view of Janu (Diffusion Bonding of Copper, International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Vol 8(3), May-June 2021) and Behnke et al. (2022/0396857A1).
Regarding claim 19, Janu discloses that the solid-state diffusion process used to form the first bond, and the second bond, comprises heating at least one of the portions of the respective first or second water barrier layer and the intermediate water barrier that are in contact with one another to a temperature of greater than 50% of the melting point of the intermediate water barrier (see Diffusion) (from claim 1). Janu does not disclose applying pressure for at least 1 hour and less than 24 hours. However, Bahnke discloses pressure welding and during the cooling adjusting the pressure to account for shrinkage (paragraph 0033). This would indicate that the pressure is still being applied during the cooling step. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to maintain a pressure during cooling to prevent misalignment or gaps to form at the joint prior to the joint being fully cooled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 8/27/2026, with respect to the 103a rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the secondary reference. The 130a rejection of claims 1-14, 16-21 has been withdrawn. This action is Non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights