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. 19/033,724, filed on January 22, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 22, 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 objected to because Figures 2-3 lacks 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 1-15, the abstract contains a number of 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 § 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) 1-7, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al (Pat Num 9,722,406, herein referred to as Manabe) in view of Nielsen, Jr et al (Pat Num 9,721,696, herein referred to as Nielsen). Manabe discloses a submarine power cable (Figs 1-6B) that has both sufficient flexibility and high impermeability (Col 2, lines 1-5). With respect to claim 1, Manabe discloses a submarine power cable system (Figs 1-2) comprising a wet design power cable section (3, Fig 2) having a first conductor section (15 of 3), a first insulation system section (17 of 3) arranged around the first conductor section (17 of 3), and a screen layer (19 of 3) formed by one or more of helically laid elongated metal elements (Col 6, lines 36-38) and arranged around the first insulation system section (17 of 3), and a static power cable section (7, Fig 3), which is a moisture buffer zone (Col 5, lines 19-24), including a second conductor section (15 of 7) connected to the first conductor section (15 of 7, Col 5, lines 7-13) and a second insulation system section (17 of 7) connected to the first insulation system section (17 of 3) by means of a flexible joint (5b), wherein the static power cable section (7) further comprising a metallic radial water-blocking sheath (21a of 7) arranged around the second insulation system section (17 of 7), wherein the metallic radial water-blocking sheath (17 of 7) is electrically connected to the screen layer (19 of 7, Col 7, lines 49-53), and wherein, from the flexible joint (5b) to a far end of the static power cable section (7), wherein the far end being arranged to be connected to a subsea electric component (1, via second 3). With respect to claim 3, Manabe discloses that the wet design power cable section (3) is a dynamic submarine power cable section (i.e. flexible section, Col 5, lines 25-33). With respect to claim 4, Manabe discloses that the wet design power cable section (3) has a static power cable section (located at 5b). With respect to claim 5, Manabe discloses that the metallic radial water-blocking sheath (21a of 7) is an extruded metal sheath (Col 7, lines 50-53). With respect to claim 6, Manabe discloses that the subsea electric component (1), wherein the far end of the static power cable section (located at the end of 7) is connected to the subsea electric component (via second 3, Fig 1). With respect to claim 7, Manabe discloses that the static power cable section (7) is a first static power cable section (located at first 7), wherein the submarine power cable system (Fig 1) comprises a second static power cable section (located at second 7, not shown), wherein the subsea electric component (1) is a rigid sea joint (5b), and wherein the first static power cable section (located at first 7) is joined with the second static power cable section (located at second 7) by means of the rigid sea joint (5b via second 3). With respect to claim 11, Manabe disclose that the subsea electric component (1) is a subsea transformer module (i.e. wind power generators, Col 5, lines 1-6). With respect to claim 14, Manabe discloses that the wet design power cable section (first 3) is free of any helically laid elongated metal element(s) radially outside the first conductor section (15 of 3) other than that/those forming the screen layer (19), and, if present, those of an armor (23a & 23b, Fig 2), and free of a metallic radial water-blocking sheath (i.e. 24 could be omitted, Col 7, lines 26-28). With respect to claim 16, Manabe discloses that the wet design power cable section (3) is a dynamic submarine power cable section (i.e. flexible section, Col 5, lines 25-33). With respect to claim 17, Manabe discloses that the wet design power cable section (3) has a static power cable section (located at 5b). With respect to claim 18, Manabe discloses that the metallic radial water-blocking sheath (21a of 7) is an extruded metal sheath (Col 7, lines 50-53). With respect to claim 19, Manabe discloses that the subsea electric component (1), wherein the far end of the static power cable section (located at the end of 7) is connected to the subsea electric component (via second 3, Fig 1).
Manabe doesn’t necessarily disclose the submarine power cable system having an axial length in a range of 1-1000 m (claim 1), nor the axial length is in the range of 1-500 m, or 1-400 mm, or 1-200 m, or 1-100 m, or 1-50 m, Or 1-10 m, or 5-500 m, or 5-400 mm, or 5-200 m, or 5-100 m, or 5- 50 m, or 5-10 m (claim 2), nor the submarine power cable system is a multi-phase AC power cable system (claim 15).
Nielsen teaches a submarine power cable (Figs 1-5) having improved mechanical strength, while also saving costs and reducing risk of harm to people and the environment (Col 5, lines 19-21). Specifically, with respect to claims 1-2, Nielson teaches submarine power cable system (Figs 3-4), wherein the submarine power cable (10, Fig 2) comprising a first conductor section (2), a first insulation system section (3-5) arranged around the first conductor section (2), and a screen layer (12) arranged around the first insulation system section (3-5), wherein the length of the submarine power cable (210, shown in Fig 4) may have an axial length of 100-2000 ft (i.e. 30-609 m, which incorporates some of the claimed ranges, Col 5, lines 53-68).
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 submarine cable system of Manabe to comprise the axial length configuration as taught by Nielsen because Nielsen teaches that such a configuration provides a submarine power cable (Figs 1-5) having improved mechanical strength, while also saving costs and reducing risk of harm to people and the environment (Col 5, lines 19-21) and 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) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al (Pat Num 9,722,406) in view of Nielsen (Pat Num 9,721,696), as applied to claims 1, 6, & 7 above (herein referred to as modified Manabe), further in view of Ghorbani et al (Pub Num 2018,0190409, herein referred to as Ghorbani). Modified Manabe discloses a submarine power cable (Figs 1-6B) that has both sufficient flexibility and high impermeability (Col 2, lines 1-5). Specifically, with respect to claim 8, Manabe discloses that the second static power cable section (located at second 7) comprises a third conductor section (15 of third 7) connected to the second conductor section (15 of second 7), and a third insulation system section (17 of third 7) arranged around the third conductor section (17 of third 7), wherein the second static power cable section (located second 7), and a metallic radial water-blocking sheath (21a) arranged around the third insulation section (17 of third). With respect to claim 9-10, modified Manabe discloses that the second static power cable section (located at second 7) is an order of one longer than the first static power cable section (located at 7, i.e. the first and second static power cable sections are equal).
However, modified Manabe doesn’t necessarily disclose a water swellable layer being between the third insulation section and the metal radial water blocking sheath (claim 8), nor the second static power cable section being longer than the first static power cable section (claim 9).
Ghorbani teaches a submarine cable system (Figs 1-6), wherein the power cable that minimizes electrical DC conductivity in the insulation (Paragraph 6), while improving electrical field distribution (Paragraph 8), and while hindering the migration of substances (Paragraph 12). Specifically, with respect to claim 8, Ghorbani teaches a first conductor section (2), a first insulation system section (20) arranged around the first conductor section (2), and a water blocking layer (19) arranged around the first insulation system section (20), wherein a water blocking tape (18) having water swellable material (Paragraph 54), is inserted between the insulation system section (20) and the water blocking layer (19).
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 submarine power cable system of modified Manabe to comprise the water swellable materials configuration as taught by Ghorbani because Ghorbani teaches that such a configuration provides a submarine cable system (Figs 1-6), wherein the power cable that minimizes electrical DC conductivity in the insulation (Paragraph 6), while improving electrical field distribution (Paragraph 8), and while hindering the migration of substances (Paragraph 12).
With respect to claims 9-10, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the submarine power cable system of modified Manabe to comprise the second static power cable section being longer than the first static power cable section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and a change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe (Pat Num 9,722,406) in view of Nielsen (Pat Num 9,721,696), as applied to claim 1 & 6 above (herein referred to as modified Manabe), further in view of Cano et al (AU Pat Num 2018250364 A1, herein referred to as Cano). Manabe discloses a submarine power cable (Figs 1-6B) that has both sufficient flexibility and high impermeability (Col 2, lines 1-5). Specifically, with respect to claims 12-13, modified Manabe discloses that the each of the two additional static power cable sections (second and third 7) comprises a respective insulation system section (17 of second and third 7), and a respective metallic radial water-blocking sheath (21a of second and third 7) arranged around the insulation system section (17 of second and third 7, i.e. more than two wind generators may be connected resulting in multiple 3’s and 7’s being connected).
However, modified Manabe doesn’t necessarily disclose the subsea electric component being a subsea T-joint, wherein the submarine power cable system comprises two additional static power cable sections, each connected to the subsea T-joint (claim 12).
Cano teaches a submarine power cable system (Figs 1-10), which reduces overall weight so that the electrical conductors of the cable are not damaged (Page 2, lines 19-21), thereby reducing the risk of overloading the conductors of the cable (Page 2, lines 11-13). Specifically, with respect to claim 12, Cano teaches a submarine cable system (Fig 3) comprising a subsea electric component being a connector (99), wherein the connector (99 is a T-joint (Fig 3)
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 submarine power cable systems of modified Manabe to comprise the connector being a T-joint connector configuration as taught by Cano because Cano teaches that such a configuration provides a submarine power cable system (Figs 1-10), which reduces overall weight so that the electrical conductors of the cable are not damaged (Page 2, lines 19-21), thereby reducing the risk of overloading the conductors of the cable (Page 2, lines 11-13) and 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.
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 submarine cable systems comprising wet design power sections connected to static power cable sections.
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 24, 2026
