DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “device” and various “module” in claim 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitations “device” and “module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determining parameters of a frequency-domain incident signal according to an on-site situation, and obtaining a cable fault positioning curve by using a Frequency Domain Reflectometry (FDR), performing a time-frequency transformation on the frequency-domain incident signal according to the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, to obtain an equivalent time-domain incident signal, calculating an attenuation characteristic parameter of a single-frequency sinusoidal linear swept-frequency incident signal transmitted in a cable according to a structural parameter of the cable and a characteristic parameter of each layer of material, obtaining a frequency domain response signal attenuated in a transmission distance according to the attenuation characteristic parameter and the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, performing the time-frequency transformation on the frequency domain response signal to obtain an equivalent time-domain response signal attenuated in the transmission distance, determining a cable fault positioning compensation curve according to the equivalent time- domain incident signal and the equivalent time-domain response signal, determining a cable fault diagnosis curve based on the cable fault positioning curve and the cable fault positioning compensation curve, determining a severity degree of a cable fault according to an amplitude of a peak point of the cable fault diagnosis curve,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept.” Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a vector network analyzer”, “device” and “module”, but said limitations are merely directed to recitation of general-purpose processors for implementing the abstract idea. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a vector network analyzer”, “device” and “module”, but said limitations are merely directed to recitation of general-purpose processors for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franchville, US Pat No. 5,949,236 (hereinafter Franchville) (cited by the Applicant) in view of Lee et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0412003 (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9. Franchville discloses a long-distance high-voltage cable fault degree detection (Abstract), comprising:
determining parameters of a frequency-domain incident signal according to an on-site situation, and obtaining a cable fault positioning curve by using a Frequency Domain Reflectometry (FDR) (Figs. 4a, 402, get reflectometry parameters, 6-7, incident signal; Col. 1, lines 6-10, frequency domain reflectometer; Col. 5, lines 5-14);
calculating an attenuation characteristic parameter of a single-frequency sinusoidal linear swept-frequency incident signal transmitted in a cable according to a structural parameter of the cable and a characteristic parameter of each layer of material (Fig. 10, attenuation factor equation),
obtaining a frequency domain response signal attenuated in a transmission distance according to the attenuation characteristic parameter and the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal (Fig. 4B, attenuation compensation procedure),
performing the time-frequency transformation on the frequency domain response signal to obtain an equivalent time-domain response signal attenuated in the transmission distance (Col. 17, lines 13-67; Col. 18, lines 18, reflected signal in frequency to reflected signal in time), determining a cable fault diagnosis curve based on the cable fault positioning curve and the cable fault positioning compensation curve (Col. 8, lines 1-4, spectral peaks), determining a severity degree of a cable fault according to an amplitude of a peak point of the cable fault diagnosis curve (Col. 8, lines 3-8, magnitude of peaks indicative of severity of the peaks)
Franchville does not disclose performing a time-frequency transformation on the frequency-domain incident signal according to the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, to obtain an equivalent time-domain incident signal, determining a cable fault positioning compensation curve according to the equivalent time-domain incident signal and the equivalent time-domain response signal.
Lee discloses performing a time-frequency transformation on the frequency-domain incident signal according to the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, to obtain an equivalent time-domain incident signal (Fig. 7, Input signal time domain, and equivalent Input signal frequency domain), determining a cable fault positioning compensation curve according to the equivalent time-domain incident signal and the equivalent time-domain response signal (Paragraph [0071], time domain reflectometry; Paragraph [0115]; [0091], frequency as well as time domain analysis and results, [0098]; [0113]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lee in Franchville and perform a time-frequency transformation on the frequency-domain incident signal according to the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, to obtain an equivalent time-domain incident signal, determining a cable fault positioning compensation curve according to the equivalent time-domain incident signal and the equivalent time-domain response signal and accurately determine the location of the fault in the cable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franchville, US Pat No. 5,949,236 in view of Lee, US-PGPUB 2020/0412003 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Niedzwiecki et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0234662 (hereinafter Niedzwiecki)
Regarding Claim 2. Franchville discloses determining parameters of a frequency-domain incident signal of the FDR test according to the on-site situation (Figs. 4a, 402, get reflectometry parameters, 6-7, incident signal; Col. 1, lines 6-10, frequency domain reflectometer; Col. 5, lines 5-14);
The modified Franchville does not disclose using a vector network analyzer to measure and obtain a complex reflection coefficient spectrum of a cable head-end in an environment based on the correlation parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, and performing the time-frequency transformation and windowing processing on the complex reflection coefficient spectrum to obtain the cable fault positioning curve.
Niedzwiecki discloses determining the correlation parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal of the FDR test according to the on-site situation (Abstract; Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]); measuring and obtaining a complex reflection coefficient spectrum of a cable head-end in an environment based on the correlation parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, and performing the time-frequency transformation and windowing processing on the complex reflection coefficient spectrum to obtain the cable fault positioning curve (Fig. 4; Paragraph [0043]-[0048])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Niedzwiecki in the modified Franchville and determine the correlation parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal of the FDR test according to the on-site situation, measure and obtaining a complex reflection coefficient spectrum of a cable head-end in an environment based on the correlation parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal, and perform the time-frequency transformation and windowing processing on the complex reflection coefficient spectrum to obtain the cable fault positioning curve with accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 3. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination. Including the parameters of the frequency-domain incident signal comprises an amplitude of a sinusoidal linear swept-frequency incident signal, an angular frequency interval of the sinusoidal linear-swept frequency incident signal, a center angular frequency and the number of test points, and
PNG
media_image1.png
344
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claims 4-8 are allowable due to their dependencies to the dependent claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0139194
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857