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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1 through 7, in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 through 11 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 26, 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content appears to be directed to a process and system, wherein the claimed invention (elected) is directed to a process. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no heading of “Brief Summary of Invention”, or “Summary of Invention”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 through 7 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.
In Claim 1, “the captured 3D surface” (line 6) lacks positive antecedent basis. Moreover, it is unclear if this “surface” is referring to the “cable” (line 4) or “cable component” (line 4).
In Claim 2, “the data points” (line 2) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 3, “the sets of 3D surface geometry measurements” (lines 1-2) and “the damaged section” (lines 2-3) each lack positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 4, “the 3D data” (lines 2-3) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 5, “the insulation thickness” (line 2) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 6, “the damaged part” (line 2) and “the 3D data” (line 3) each lack positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 7, it is unclear if the latter phrase of “3-dimensional (3D) surface geometry measurement data” (line 2) is referring to an earlier phase of “3-dimensional (3D) surface geometry measurement data” (lines 3-4 of Claim 1). Also, “the 3D measurement” (line 4) lacks positive antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1 through 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication WO 2019/197530 (hereinafter “WO’530”) in view of the teachings of European Patent Publication EP 3 901 571 (hereinafter “EP’571”), U.S. Patent 4,170,575 to Rothenberg et al (hereinafter “Rothenberg”), and U.S. Publication 2005/0132853 to Hattersley et al (hereinafter “Hattersley”).
Claim 1: WO’530 discloses a method for inspecting damages to high voltage and/or medium voltage cables or cable components (e.g. page 8, lines 25+), the method comprising the steps of:
a) capture and store a set of 3-dimensional (3D) surface geometry measurement data (e.g. p. 5, lines 14-21) of an area of interest of a surface (e.g. 22, Fig. 2) of the cable or cable component with a 3D surface scanner (e.g. 1) about the cable over the area of interest (e.g. Fig. 1);
b) inspect the captured 3D surface from step a) to evaluate if any damages (defects) are present (e.g. p. 4, lines 9-24); and
c) if the inspection reveals a damage (defect), continue manufacturing of the cable body (e.g. coating, extruding, etc., p. 7, lines 10-14, p. 8, lines 1-3).
Capturing the area of interest of the cable involves a number of sensors (e.g. 6), as part of the 3D surface scanner, that are placed around and/or surround the cable (e.g. 2, Fig. 2).
Claim 2: WO’530 discloses the method according to claim 1, where the 3D surface geometry measurement data are represented by a data point cloud (e.g. 12, Fig. 1), where the data points in data point cloud can be further processed (continuing of manufacture) to provide a representation of the cable (p. 4, lines 1-8, p. 5, lines 14-21).
Claim 3: WO’530 discloses the method according to claim 1, where the set of 3D surface geometry measurement data from each repeated step are merged to obtain a full 3D map of the damaged section of the cable (e.g. p. 5, lines 8-13).
Claim 6: WO’530 discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
e) repairing a damaged (defective) part of the cable (e.g. fix issues causing defects, p. 8, lines 1-4, use of process supervision unit 20, p. 8, lines 20-23);
f) capture a 3D measurement of the repaired cable (e.g. processed data) and store the 3D surface geometry measurement data in a storage device (e.g. 12, p. 9, lines 1-10).
Claim 7: WO’530 discloses the method according to claim 6, further comprising the steps of:
acquiring a basis set of the 3-dimensional (3D) surface geometry measurement data (e.g. defect data) during production of the cable or cable component, and
comparing the 3D measurement of the repaired cable (processed data) with the basis 3D measurement (defect data, using analysis part 4, Fig. 1, p. 8, lines 17-19, p. 9, lines 1-9).
WO’530 does not teach that the 3D scanner is moving about the cable, removing a section of the cable body if damage is revealed, and repeating steps of capturing (a), inspecting (b), and removing (c), until no damage is revealed [as required in Claim 1].
EP’571 teaches that a 3D scanner (e.g. 10, Fig. 2) can move about (around) a cable or cable body (e.g. 1) to capture and store a set of 3D surface geometry measurement data of an area of interest (e.g. 11a, 11b….11n)(e.g. ¶ [0029]). Moving the scanner around the area of interest saves in the number of manufacturing components, as compared to using a number sensors that surround the cable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 3D surface scanner of EP’571 for the 3D surface scanner of WO’530, to achieve the very same purpose of capturing and storing the 3D surface geometry measurement data in an area, or areas, of interest all around the cable, and to save in the number of manufacturing components.
It is well-known in the art of manufacturing cables, that when an inspection reveals damage (defects) to a cable body, repeated removal of sections of the cable body can be done until no damage (defects) is revealed on the cable or cable body. As evidence of obviousness, see Rothenberg (e.g. col. 1, lines 30-35) and Hattersley (e.g. ¶ [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable manufacturing process of WO’530 by including repeated steps of removing sections of the cable body, as taught by Rothenberg and Hattersley, to ultimately provide a cable, or cable body with no damage (defects) within its final structure.
Claim 4: EP’571 further teaches attaching at least one marker device (e.g. stickers, clamps, etc.) on the cable near the area of interest, identifying the marker device in the 3D surface geometry measurement data and using the identified marker device to align the sets of surface geometry measurement data during merging (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0030]). This marker devices also provides the recognition of positioning and direction for the 3D surface scanner along the cable (e.g. ¶ [0029]).
Claim 5: EP’571 further teaches that an inspection comprises measuring an insulation thickness of the cable through an area of cut, or depth of cut from the surface, or area of interest, of the cable (e.g. ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of WO’530 by adding marker devices and measuring insulation thickness, as taught by EP’571, to allow the 3D surface scanner to recognize its position and direction along the surface of the cable, and to determine dimensions or shape of the cable through the thickness of insulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication JP 2016-139537, discloses a method for inspecting a damage cable (e.g. Fig. 1, see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Robinson et al, entitled "Automated high voltage cable inspection using X-ray images", discloses a method for inspecting damages to a cable or cable component with a camera or sensor (e.g. Fig. 1, see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights