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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said multiple strands" in lines 3, 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the multiple synthetic strands in lines 1 and 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said multiple synthetic strands”. The same issue is present in claim 8 and 15.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said strands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the multiple synthetic strands in claim 1, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said multiple synthetic strands”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each of said stands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the multiple synthetic strands in claim 1, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “each of said multiple synthetic strands”. The same issue tis present in claim 6-7.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said guides" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of guides in line 3, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of guides”. The same issue tis present in claim 7.
Line 1 of claims 2-7 causes confusion because it is unclear if it is reciting a previously introduced limitation in claim 1 (the cable) as a new limitation (a cable), “The monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 1…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said anchors" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of anchors in line 3, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of anchors”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said synthetic strands" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of synthetic strands in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of synthetic strands”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said multiple strands" in lines 7 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of synthetic strands in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of synthetic strands”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said multiple strands" in lines 7 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of synthetic strands in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of synthetic strands”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said strands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of synthetic strands in claim 1, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of synthetic strands”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "each of said stands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of synthetic strands in claim 8, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “each of said plurality of synthetic strands”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said guide tubes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the singular guide tube in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said guide tube”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said guides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of guides in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of guides”. The same issue is present in claim 14.
Line 1 of claims 9-14 causes confusion because it is unclear if it is reciting a previously introduced limitation in claim 8 (the cable) as a new limitation (a cable), “The monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 8…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said strand" in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the synthetic strand in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said synthetic strand”. The same issue is present in claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said guides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If it is referring to the plurality of guides in line 2, then it is recommended to amend the limitation to recite “said plurality of guides”. The same issue tis present in claim 7.
Line 1 of claims 16-20 causes confusion because it is unclear if it is reciting a previously introduced limitation in claim 15 (the cable) as a new limitation (a cable), “The monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 15…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 8.
Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell; Richard V. et al. (US publication #US 20180320756 A1; hereinafter the Campbell publication) in view of Campbell; Richard V (US Patent #US 9835228 B2; hereinafter the Campbell patent).
Regarding claim 1, the Campbell publication teaches a monitoring system (par.191 teaches monitoring system for a cable) for a cable (abstract teaches cable) made of multiple synthetic strands (par.9 “synthetic filaments 35”), comprising:
(b) said multiple strands passing from a diverging region (par.166 “many filaments are not completely straight. Instead, they curve and slew laterally with respect to the central axis of the cable (Some divergence is obviously desirable for an expanding anchor cavity but a disorganized “curvy” arrangement is not desirable).”) proximate said collector to a normal cable lay distal (par.20 “Proximal end 54 is the end of the anchor where the cable emerges. Distal end 56 is the opposite end.”) to said collector;
(e) a monitoring electrical circuit monitoring (par.191 teaches monitoring electrical circuitry) said frangible conductor in order to detect a breakage of said frangible conductor (par.197-203 teaches detecting break by measuring and recording break strength).
The Campbell publication does not explicitly teach (a) said multiple synthetic strands being connected to a collector; (c) a frangible conductor passing from said collector and through said multiple strands; (d) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement of any one strand of said multiple strands; and
The Campbell Patent does teach
(a) said multiple synthetic strands (col.1 ln 44-67 “FIG. 1 shows a cable 10 made from advanced high-strength synthetic filaments.”) being connected to a collector (col. 6 ln 36-48 teaches a collector 34);
(c) a frangible conductor (fig.5 & 6 Frangible conductor is the loading nut 24) passing from said collector and through said multiple strands (fig.6 shows passing through multiple strands);
(d) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement of any one strand of said multiple strands (par.174 “the applied tension and translation (as indicated by the arrow) tend to pull the filaments within middle region 30, neck region 29, and transition region 26 straight and provide a more uniform load distribution. These changes produce enhanced overall breaking strength”; the translation corresponds to the longitudinal displacement of strands and because they enhance the characteristic of breaking, implies that its configured to break); and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The Campbell publication to include the teachings of The Campbell Patent; which would provide a method for loading a cable in order to create a desired distribution of the load among the cable's constituent strands as disclosed by The Campbell Patent(col.4 ln 62 -col.5 ln 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Campbell Publication Figure 18
PNG
media_image2.png
746
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
654
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Campbell patent Figure 6
The Campbell Patent Figure 5
Regarding claim 2, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 1, The Campbell publication further teaches further comprising a strand guide/cover surrounding said strands in said diverging region (Anchor #18(fig.7 & 8)).
Regarding claim 3, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 2, The Campbell publication further teaches wherein said strand guide/cover is attached to said collector (Fig.7 &8 shows cover 18 connected to collector 15).
Regarding claim 4, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 1, The Campbell Patent further teaches wherein:
(a) each of said stands includes a guide tube (#24 loading studs are interpreted as guiding tubes) passing transversely therethrough (#24 loading studs are interpreted as guiding tubes since they are tubular and embedded within strand 12); and
(b) said frangible conductor passes through each of said guide tubes (fig.7 shows guide tube as strand tensioners; col.9 ln 37-38 teach “each strand tensioner 50”, thus each strand includes a guide tube passing).
Regarding claim 5, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 1, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising a connector (fig.14 shows #24 having nut 84 as connector) connecting said frangible conductor to said monitoring electrical circuit (Col.15 ln1 23-fig.8 shows pressure controller/sensor 60 connected to the nut of loading stud 24).
Regarding claim 18, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 5, The Campbell Patent further teaches wherein:
(a) said strand includes a guide tube passing transversely therethrough (#24 loading studs are interpreted as guiding tubes since they are tubular and embedded within strand 12); and
(b) said frangible conductor passes through said guide tube (fig.7 shows guide tube as strand tensioners; col.9 ln 37-38 teach “each strand tensioner 50”, thus each strand includes a guide tube passing).
Regarding claim 6, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 1, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising:
(a) wherein each of said strands is connected to said collector by an anchor (fig.2 shows anchor 18 and fig.5 has the same element (not numbered) connected to collector 34);
(b) a plurality of guides connected to said anchors (#26, 20, 22 and 28 from fig.2 teach plurality of guides connected to anchors 18); and
(c) wherein said frangible conductor passes through said guides (fig.2 shows loading stud 24 passing through male thread 26).
Regarding claim 7, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 4, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising:
(a) wherein each of said strands is connected to said collector by an anchor (fig.2 shows anchor 18 and fig.5 has the same element (not numbered) connected to collector 34);
(b) a plurality of guides connected to said anchors (#26, 20, 22 and 28 from fig.2 teach plurality of guides connected to anchors 18); and
(c) wherein said frangible conductor passes through said guides (fig.2 shows loading stud 24 passing through male thread 26).
Regarding claim 8, the Campbell publication teaches a monitoring system (par.191 teaches monitoring system for a cable) for a cable (abstract teaches cable) comprising:
(a) a plurality of synthetic strands (par.9 “synthetic filaments”);
(b) a plurality of anchors (par.251 “single chamber can be used to house multiple terminations. For instance, a single chamber might house four anchors”), with each of said anchors being attached to one of said synthetic strands (par.251 “being added to the ends of four cables.”);
(g) a monitoring electrical circuit monitoring (par.191 teaches monitoring electrical circuitry) said frangible conductor in order to detect a breakage of said frangible conductor (par.197-203 teaches detecting break by measuring and recording break strength).
the Campbell publication fails to teach (c) a collector; (d) each of said anchors being connected to said collector; (e) a frangible conductor passing from said collector and through said multiple strands; and (f) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement 22 of any one strand of said multiple strands with respect to said collector; and
The Campbell Patent does teach
(c) a collector (abstract);
(d) each of said anchors being connected to said collector (fig.2 #18 is the anchor and fig.4 shows collector 34, which are connected when they come in contact);
(e) a frangible conductor (fig.5 & 6 Frangible conductor is the loading nut 24) passing from said collector and through said multiple strands (fig.6 shows passing through multiple strands); and
(f) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement of any one strand of said multiple strands with respect to said collector (par.174 “the applied tension and translation (as indicated by the arrow) tend to pull the filaments within middle region 30, neck region 29, and transition region 26 straight and provide a more uniform load distribution. These changes produce enhanced overall breaking strength”; the translation corresponds to the longitudinal displacement of strands and because they enhance the characteristic of breaking, implies that it’s configured to break); and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The Campbell publication to include the teachings of The Campbell Patent; which would provide a method for loading a cable in order to create a desired distribution of the load among the cable's constituent strands as disclosed by The Campbell Patent (col.4 ln 62 -col.5 ln 8).
Regarding claim 9, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 8, The Campbell publication further teaches further comprising a strand guide/cover surrounding said strands in said diverging region (Anchor #18(fig.7 & 8)).
Regarding claim 10, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 9, The Campbell publication further teaches wherein said strand guide/cover is attached to said collector (Fig.7 &8 shows cover 18 connected to collector 15).
Regarding claim 11, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 8, The Campbell Patent further teaches wherein:
(a) each of said stands includes a guide tube (#24 loading studs are interpreted as guiding tubes) passing transversely therethrough (#24 loading studs are interpreted as guiding tubes since they are tubular and embedded within strand 12); and
(b) said frangible conductor passes through each of said guide tubes (fig.7 shows guide tube as strand tensioners; col.9 ln 37-38 teach “each strand tensioner 50”, thus each strand includes a guide tube passing).
Regarding claim 12, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 8, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising a connector (fig.14 shows #24 having nut 84 as connector) connecting said frangible conductor to said monitoring electrical circuit (Col.15 ln1 23-fig.8 shows pressure controller/sensor 60 connected to the nut of loading stud 24).
Regarding claim 13, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 8, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising:
(a) a plurality of guides connected to said anchors (#26, 20, 22 and 28 from fig.2 teach plurality of guides connected to anchors 18); and
(c) wherein said frangible conductor passes through said guides (fig.2 shows loading stud 24 passing through male thread 26).
Regarding claim 14, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 11, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising:
(a) a plurality of guides connected to said anchors (#26, 20, 22 and 28 from fig.2 teach plurality of guides connected to anchors 18); and
(c) wherein said frangible conductor passes through said guides (fig.2 shows loading stud 24 passing through male thread 26).
Regarding claim 15, the Campbell publication teaches a monitoring system (par.191 teaches monitoring system for a cable) for a cable (abstract teaches cable) comprising:
(a) a synthetic strand (par.9 “synthetic filaments”);
(b) an anchor (par.251 “single chamber can be used to house multiple terminations. For instance, a single chamber might house four anchors”) attached to an end of said synthetic strand (par.251 “being added to the ends of four cables.”);
(g) a monitoring electrical circuit monitoring (par.191 teaches monitoring electrical circuitry) said frangible conductor in order to detect a breakage of said frangible conductor (par.197-203 teaches detecting break by measuring and recording break strength).
the Campbell publication fails to teach (c) a collector; (d) each of said anchors being connected to said collector; (e) a frangible conductor passing from said collector and through said multiple strands; and (f) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement 22 of any one strand of said multiple strands with respect to said collector; and
The Campbell Patent does teach
(c) a collector (abstract);
(d) each of said anchor being connected to said collector (fig.2 #18 is the anchor and fig.4 shows collector 34, which are connected when they come in contact);
(e) a frangible conductor (fig.5 & 6 Frangible conductor is the loading nut 24) passing from said collector and through said strand (fig.6 shows passing through multiple strands); and
(f) said frangible conductor being configured to break upon longitudinal displacement of said strand (par.174 “the applied tension and translation (as indicated by the arrow) tend to pull the filaments within middle region 30, neck region 29, and transition region 26 straight and provide a more uniform load distribution. These changes produce enhanced overall breaking strength”; the translation corresponds to the longitudinal displacement of strands and because they enhance the characteristic of breaking, implies that it’s configured to break); and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified The Campbell publication to include the teachings of The Campbell Patent; which would provide a method for loading a cable in order to create a desired distribution of the load among the cable's constituent strands as disclosed by The Campbell Patent (col.4 ln 62 -col.5 ln 8).
Regarding claim 16, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 15, The Campbell publication further teaches further comprising a strand guide/cover surrounding said strands in said diverging region (Anchor #18(fig.7 & 8)).
Regarding claim 17, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 16, The Campbell publication further teaches wherein said strand guide/cover is attached to said collector (Fig.7 &8 shows cover 18 connected to collector 15).
Regarding claim 19, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 15, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising a connector (fig.14 shows #24 having nut 84 as connector) connecting said frangible conductor to said monitoring electrical circuit (Col.15 ln1 23-fig.8 shows pressure controller/sensor 60 connected to the nut of loading stud 24).
Regarding claim 20, The Campbell publication in view of The Campbell Patent teaches the monitoring system for a cable as recited in claim 15, The Campbell Patent further teaches further comprising:
(a) a plurality of guides connected to said anchors (#26, 20, 22 and 28 from fig.2 teach plurality of guides connected to anchors 18); and
(c) wherein said frangible conductor passes through said guides (fig.2 shows loading stud 24 passing through male thread 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20110223796 A1; REIMCHEN; Valeri is a cable connector in particular multi-pole cable connectors.
US 20100084159 A1; Drew; George Albert et al. is a Sealed cable and terminal crimp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858