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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues: “the assertion that the conductive aluminum strands of Cai are equivalent to a material layer comprising aluminum that is component of a strength member, as recited in Claim 42, is incompatible with the interpretation that would be applied by a person of ordinary skill in the art…Claim 42 recites, inter alia, "at least a first plurality of aluminum conductive strands helically wrapped around the composite strength member, wherein the composite strength member supports the conductive strands." Claim 42 thus requires the conductive strands to be a structurally separate element from the strength member, including from the second material layer of the strength member”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no structural limitations in the claim that disclose the structure of the second material layer, only that the layer contains aluminum. There are no structural elements that disclose the material layer being a component of the strength member which make it materially different than the cable disclosed by Cai. There is also no evidence in the specification nor the drawings which disclose the structure of the strength member which is different from that of the cable disclosed by Cai.
Applicant further argues: “The Office Action's mapping of the same element – aluminum stranded wire 4 - to both the second material layer of the strength member and the conductive strands wrapped around it is internally contradictory. A single structural element in the prior art cannot simultaneously serve as both a layer within the strength member and a separate set of conductive strands wrapped around that layer. Applicant's amendment further clarifies this structural relationship to remove any potential ambiguity”.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. Cai does not state that there is only one aluminum layer 4. Cai appears to disclose multiple layers of aluminum conductor layer 4 as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, the 1st layer and the 2nd layer are not single structural elements even if they are materially same as the claims do not disclose any material differences in the material layer and the conductive strands.
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 42-46, 48, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai, CN 201285670 in view of Takaduma et al., US 20210116265
Regarding claim 42, Cai discloses a monitoring system configured for monitoring a condition of a fiber- reinforced composite strength member in an overhead electrical cable (Abstract; strain is sensed, which is a condition), the system comprising:
an overhead electrical cable (Figs. 1-3), comprising: a single element fiber-reinforced composite strength member (Figs. 1-3; core 2), comprising;
a fiber-reinforced composite section comprising a binding matrix and a plurality of reinforcing fibers operatively disposed within the binding matrix (Fig. 1-3; Mode for invention section: “composite material in core 2 is made of carbon fibre, glass fibre, aramid fibre, basalt fibre, one or both of the PBO fibre or crystal whisker in two kinds or more mixed fibre of fibre reinforced thermosetting composite material”),
at least a first material layer disposed around the fiber- reinforced composite section, the first material layer comprising a polymer coating (Figs.1-3; outer core 3 is plastic),
at least a second material layer disposed around the first material layer, the second material layer comprising aluminum (Fig. 1-3; aluminum stranded wire 4), and
at least a first sensing optical fiber disposed along a length of the fiber-reinforced composite section and between the fiber- reinforced composite section and the first material layer (Fig. 1-3; stress sensing optical fiber 1-1);
at least a first plurality of aluminum conductive strands helically wrapped around the second material layer of the strength member (Fig. 3; second layer of aluminum wire 4 are wrapped in a spiral fashion), wherein the strength member supports the conductive strands (Fig. 3; the conductive strands are held on top of the stranded wire 4 and core 2 and is therefore supported by core 2 and wire 4); and
an interrogation device operatively connected to an end portion of the first sensing optical fiber (inherent in sensing stress using the stress sensing optical fiber 1-1).
Cai is silent in wherein the interrogation device is configured to monitor the strain in the at least first sensing optical fiber. Takaduma discloses wherein an the interrogation device is configured to monitor the strain in the at least first sensing optical fiber (¶[0089]; “enable calculation of strain of each of the sensor optical fibers 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d based on the measurement results”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the strain measurement of Takeduma into the optical sensor of Cai for the benefit of detecting changes in shape that could indicate a damage or breakage in the cable (¶[0021]) .
Regarding claim 43, Cai is silent in wherein the overhead electrical cable has a length of at least about 500 meters. Takaduma is in the field of sensing strain in cables using optical sensors and discloses wherein an overhead cable comprising an optical fiber has a length of at least about 500 meters (¶[0088]; “cable 10 is several hundred meters”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Takaduma into Cai since having a length of about 500 meters would sufficiently monitor a large area having the overhead cable.
Regarding claim 44, Cai teaches wherein the polymer coating comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a fluorinated ethylene polymer (FEP) and polyoxymethylene (POM) (“material of the outer core of the multifunctional compound core of organic silicon rubber…PEEK, PPS, polyimide or polyvinyl chloride”).
Regarding claim 45 and 46, Cai is silent in wherein the interrogation device comprises a Brillouin distributed sensor and wherein the Brillouin distributed sensor is selected from a BOTDR device and a BOTDA device. Takaduma discloses wherein an interrogation device comprises a Brillouin distributed sensor and wherein the Brillouin distributed sensor is selected from a BOTDR device and a BOTDA device (¶[0089]; “the shape sensing system has a configuration enabling the principle of Brillouin optical time domain reflectometry (BOTDR)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate BOTDR device of Takeduma into the optical sensor of Cai since the light guide of Cai would operate with predictable result of transmitting and measuring light beams.
Regarding claim 48, Cai is silent in wherein the monitoring system is configured to monitor the condition of the strength member during operation of a transmission line comprising the overhead electrical cable. Takaduma discloses wherein a monitoring system is configured to monitor the condition of the strength member during operation of a transmission line comprising the overhead electrical cable (Figs. 9-10; transmission line 175 having strength member with monitoring devices 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the monitoring during operation as taught by Takeduma into the optical sensor of Cai for the benefit of detecting changes in shape that could indicate a damage or breakage in the cable during the operation of the overhead line (¶[0021]).
Regarding claim 50, Cai teaches wherein the reinforcing fibers are selected from carbon fibers and aramid fibers (“composite material in core 2 is made of carbon fibre, glass fibre, aramid fibre”).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai, CN 201285670 in view of Takaduma et al., US 20210116265 in view of Chun, US 20050107968
Regarding claim 49, Cai is silent in wherein the monitoring system is operatively coupled to a wireless transmission device that is configured so that data may be remotely collected from the monitoring system. Chun wherein the monitoring system is operatively coupled to a wireless transmission device that is configured so that data may be remotely collected from the monitoring system (Fig. 6; wireless device 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Chun into Cai for the benefit of sending information concerning the overhead cable to a remote destination.
Claim(s) 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai, CN 201285670 in view of Takaduma et al., US 20210116265 in view of Knuepfer et al., US 2014/0049786.
Regarding claim 51, Cai is silent in where the end portion of the at least first sensing optical fiber extends beyond an end of the overhead electrical cable. Knuepfer teaches where an end portion of an at least first sensing optical fiber extends beyond an end of an electrical cable (Fig. 6; optical fiber 71 extending beyond extending cable 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Knuepfer into Cai for the benefit of injecting and receiving test signals from the cable and to the cable.
Regarding claim 52, Cai is silent wherein the end portion of the at least first optical fiber extends beyond the end of the overhead electrical cable by at least about 5 cm. Knuepfer teaches where an end portion of an at least first sensing optical fiber extends beyond an end of an electrical cable (Fig. 6; optical fiber 71 extending beyond extending cable 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Knuepfer into Cai for the benefit of injecting and receiving test signals from the cable and to the cable. Cai as modified is silent in wherein the optical fiber extends by at least about 5 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a length of at least about 5 cm, 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. It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficient length of the optical fiber for connecting to a measurement device.
Regarding claim 53, Cai is silent in wherein the end portion of the at least first optical fiber extends beyond the end of the overhead electrical cable by not more than about 40 cm. Knuepfer teaches where an end portion of an at least first sensing optical fiber extends beyond an end of an electrical cable (Fig. 6; optical fiber 71 extending beyond extending cable 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Knuepfer into Cai for the benefit of injecting and receiving test signals from the cable and to the cable. Cai as modified is silent in wherein optical fiber extends beyond by not more than about 40 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a length of a not more than about 40 cm, 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. It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficient length of the optical fiber for connecting to a measurement device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights