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 .
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 4, 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 3 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that “[P]rior to the present invention, the OTDR technique had not been used to measure strain in an optical cable, much less a long one secured to a support cable for holding up a load, in order to detect impending collapse of the support cable. No suggestion of such an application appears in the prior art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Morrison teaches, in para. [0061], that FIG. 5 shows a cross section of the main multi-strand optical cable 24. The optical cable 24 is comprised of a central strength member 26, which may be comprised of metal wire of other materials having suitable stiffness and strength properties. The Examiner interprets “multi-strand optical cable 24” and “a central strength member 2 as “optical cables” and “support cable,” respectively. Further, Morrison teaches, in para. [0079], that tests were conducted to assess the OTDR's suitability for the fatigue monitoring system…while the cable was bent, the OTDR strain monitoring equipment was observed. Further, Morrison teaches, in para. [0056], that the optical cable 24 has four breaks out locations 31, 32, 33, and 34, where four separate optical fibers with sensors “break out” of the cable… each of the four optical fibers (at each of the break out locations) will have a plurality of strain sensors. Therefore. Morrison teaches “the OTDR technique had been used to measure strain in an optical cable.”
Further, Examiner respectfully note that MPEP § 2145(VI) discusses arguments about limitations that are not claimed. MPEP § 2145(VI) states that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the OTDR (Optical Time Domain Reflectometry) technique used to measure strain in an optical cable, much less a long one secured to a support cable for holding up a load, in order to detect impending collapse of the support cable) are not recited in the rejected claim with sufficiently definite structure or acts. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On the page 4 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that “[O]n page 9 of the November 4, 2025 office action, the Examiner states "Morrison and Smith are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed [sic] of cable monitoring system using optical fiber." This is also not correct, since monitoring strain in an under- water pipe such as in the case of Morrison is not analogous to monitoring strain in a support cable such as one that holds up a bridge, the arrangement to which Applicant's invention is directed.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Morrison teaches, in para. [0061], that FIG. 5 shows a cross section of the main multi-strand optical cable 24. The optical cable 24 is comprised of a central strength member 26, which may be comprised of metal wire of other materials having suitable stiffness and strength properties. The Examiner interprets “multi-strand optical cable 24” and “a central strength member 2 as “optical cables” and “support cable,” respectively. Further, Morrison teaches, in para. [0056], that the optical cable 24 has four breaks out locations 31, 32, 33, and 34, where four separate optical fibers with sensors “break out” of the cable… each of the four optical fibers (at each of the break out locations) will have a plurality of strain sensors.” Further, Morrison teaches, in para. [0079], that tests were conducted to assess the OTDR's suitability for the fatigue monitoring system…the reduced radius resulted in an increased strain on the optical fiber. While the cable was bent, the OTDR strain monitoring equipment was observed. Therefore, Morrison teaches monitoring strain in a support cable because optical cable comprises the support cable.
Further, Examiner respectfully note that MPEP § 2145(VI) discusses arguments about limitations that are not claimed. MPEP § 2145(VI) states that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., monitoring strain in a support cable such as one that holds up a bridge) are not recited in the rejected claim with sufficiently definite structure or acts. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “threshold setting means” in claims 27 and 31 and “warning means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Image… the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 8 and paras. [0105]-[0109].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US 2006/0230839 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Morrison”) in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0103223 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”).
Regarding claim 27, Morrison teaches apparatus for monitoring longitudinal strain in a multi-strand support cable (FIG. 5 shows a cross section of the main multi-strand optical cable 24. The optical cable 24 is comprised of a central strength member 26; para. [0061]: the optical cable 24 is comprised of a central strength member 26) under tension and determining (Figs. 1-2: rise cable, Fig. 4: 20 strand fiber optic cable; para. [0061]: Fig. 5: multi-strand optical cable 24) when there is a significant likelihood that at least one cable strand has broken (Fig. 3 and para. [0056]: the optical cable 24 has four breaks out locations 31, 32, 33, and 34), comprising:
a length of fiber optic cable (para. [0061]: multi-strand optical cable 24; Fig. 5, internal layer of counter-helically wound, Armored optical cable; Fig. 5, tough polyurethane jacket) secured to the support cable (para. [0061]: a central strength member 26), said fiber optic cable (para. [0061]: multi-strand optical cable 24; Fig. 5, internal layer of counter-helically wound, Armored optical cable; Fig. 5, tough polyurethane jacket) including two or more longitudinally spaced optical backscatter creating discontinuities (Fig. 4: 20 strand fiber optic cable; para. [0061]: Fig. 5: multi-strand optical cable 2; para. [0056]: the optical cable 24 has four breaks out locations 31, 32, 33, and 34, where four separate optical fibers with sensors “break out” of the cable… each of the four optical fibers (at each of the break out locations) will have a plurality of strain sensors; para. [0078]: this backward reflection of light within an optical fiber is called backscatter. As the optical fiber undergoes a strain, a greater proportion of the light is back scattered. This backscatter is measured and converted to a strain; para. [0079]: tests were conducted to assess the OTDR's suitability for the fatigue monitoring system… the reduced radius resulted in an increased strain on the optical fiber. While the cable was bent, the OTDR strain monitoring equipment was observed while the cable was bent, the OTDR strain monitoring equipment was observed) and cable stand breakage (paras. [0056]: the optical cable 24 has four breaks out locations 31, 32, 33, and 34, where four separate optical fibers with sensors “break out” of the cable… each of the four optical fibers (at each of the break out locations) will have a plurality of strain sensors; para. [0078]: see above).
Morrison does not specifically teach optical signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means, including a light source, operatively associated with said fiber optic cable for determining changes in the cable strain between said light source and at least one of said discontinuities by measuring the round trip transit time between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity; threshold setting means for setting a threshold strain change parameter corresponding to a maximum acceptable level of longitudinal support cable strain change between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity; and warning means coupled to said optical signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said threshold setting means 51for generating a support cable strand breakage warning signal when the cable strain change between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity exceeds the parameter set by said threshold setting means, whereby said warning signal is generated when there is likely to be a breakage of said strand.
However, Smith teaches optical signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means, including a light source, operatively associated with said fiber optic cable (para. [0014]: a light source transmits a modulated optical signal through the cable lengths), for determining changes in the cable strain between said light source and at least one of said discontinuities (para. [0014: backscatter) by measuring the round trip transit time between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity (Fig. 2; para. [0014]: a light source transmits a modulated optical signal through the cable lengths. A device providing a backscatter detection function communicates with the cable lengths and detects backscatter resulting from deformation of one or more of the cable lengths due to passage of a train or similar moving object along the track);
threshold setting means (para. [0046]: the comparator 805 will compare the normal backscatter 202 from each rail as described with reference to FIG. 2) for setting a threshold strain change parameter corresponding to a maximum acceptable level of longitudinal support cable strain change between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity (para. [0014: backscatter; para. [0046]: failure) (para. [0046]: the comparator 805 will compare the normal backscatter 202 from each rail as described with reference to FIG. 2. If the normal level of backscatter is not similar in each of the coupled devices performing function 803 for corresponding zones, then there is a potential equipment failure; so that the detection system is self-monitoring); and
warning means (paras. [0027]: backscatter; para. [0028]: backscatter indicating anomaly) coupled to said optical signal transmitting (para. [0014]: a light source transmits a modulated optical signal through the cable lengths), receiving and data processing means and said threshold setting means for generating a support cable strand anomaly warning signal (para. [0026]: a fiber optic strand and the creation of backscatter as a result of bending of the fiber; para. [0028]: backscatter indicating anomaly) (para. [0046]: the comparator 805 will (compare the normal backscatter 202 from each rail as described with reference to FIG. 2) when the cable strain change (para. [0026]: a fiber optic strand and the creation of backscatter as a result of bending of the fiber; para. [0033]: Block 310 is the fiber optic strain sensing cable) between said signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means and said at least one discontinuity exceeds the parameter set by said threshold setting means, whereby said warning signal is generated when there is likely to be a breakage of said strand (para. [0046]: the comparator 805 will compare the normal backscatter 202 from each rail as described with reference to FIG. 2. If the normal level of backscatter is not similar in each of the coupled devices performing function 803 for corresponding zones, then there is a potential equipment failure; so that the detection system is self-monitoring).
Morrison and Smith are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of cable monitoring system using optical fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optical signal transmitting, receiving and data processing means, such as is described in Smith into Morrison, in order to provide a backscatter detection function communicates with the cable lengths and detects backscatter resulting from deformation of one or more of the cable lengths due to passage of a train or similar moving object along the track (Smith, para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 29, Morrison in view of Smith teaches all the limitation of claim 27.
Morrison does not specifically teach that there are multiple discontinuities, a plurality of which are equally spaced apart.
However, Smith teaches that there are multiple discontinuities, a plurality of which are equally spaced apart (Fig. 2, paras. [0027]-[0029]: backscatter indicating anomaly backscatters 203, 204, 205; para. [0027]: there are multiple discontinuities, a plurality of which are equally spaced apart).
Morrison and Smith are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of cable monitoring system using optical fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate multiple discontinuities such as is described in Smith into Morrison, in order to provide a backscatter detection function communicates with the cable lengths and detects backscatter resulting from deformation of one or more of the cable lengths due to passage of a train or similar moving object along the track (Smith, para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 30, Morrison in view of Smith teaches all the limitation of claim 29.
Morrison does not specifically that the distance between adjacent equally spaced apart discontinuities is sufficiently great to be discernable, and sufficiently small to enable location of the section of cable where there is likely to be anomaly of said strand.
However, Smith teaches that the distance between adjacent equally spaced apart discontinuities is sufficiently great to be discernable, and sufficiently small to enable location of the section of cable where there is likely to be anomaly of said strand (Fig. 2, paras. [0027]-[0029]: backscatter indicating anomaly backscatters 203, 204, 205; para. [0027]: there are multiple discontinuities, a plurality of which are equally spaced apart).
Morrison and Smith are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of cable monitoring system using optical fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance between adjacent equally spaced apart discontinuities such as is described in Smith into Morrison, in order to provide a backscatter detection function communicates with the cable lengths and detects backscatter resulting from deformation of one or more of the cable lengths due to passage of a train or similar moving object along the track (Smith, para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 31, Morrison in view of Smith teaches all the limitation of claim 29.
Morrison does not specifically that said threshold setting means sets said parameter based on a change from the distance between adjacent discontinuities when the cable is at a temperature where strand breaking risk increases substantially.
However, Smith teaches that said threshold setting means (Fig. 2; para. [0046]: the comparator 805 will compare the normal backscatter 202 from each rail as described with reference to FIG. 2. If the normal level of backscatter is not similar in each of the coupled devices performing function 803 for corresponding zones, then there is a potential equipment failure) sets said parameter based on a change from the distance between adjacent discontinuities when the cable is at a temperature where strand anomaly risk increases substantially (para. [0009]: sensitive to changes in the cable due to external stress or temperature variation).
Morrison and Smith are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of cable monitoring system using optical fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the threshold setting means such as is described in Smith into Morrison, in order to provide a backscatter detection function communicates with the cable lengths and detects backscatter resulting from deformation of one or more of the cable lengths due to passage of a train or similar moving object along the track (Smith, para. [0014]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858