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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 11-20 are pending. Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 June 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 13-15, and 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 13 recites the limitation "said excitation device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 13.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the measuring system according to claim 1” in line 5. Claim 1 is cancelled. This claim limitation will be interpreted as “the measuring system according to claim 11.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 111208022 A).
In regards to claim 11, Zhang discloses a measuring system for measuring elasticity (see machine translation, para. [0002]) of an overhead line (14) of a track, the measuring system comprising:
a non-contacting sensor (12) for detecting a position of a measuring point (para. [0024], lines 24-25) of the overhead line (14);
an evaluation device (para. [0015], lines 12-13, “obtained through video analysis” requires a device to analyze and evaluate the data) for calculating the elasticity (para. [0016], lines 1-2) of the overhead line (14); a mechanical excitation device (10) for setting the overhead line (14) into vibration through active excitation (para. [0025], lines 9-13);
said non-contacting sensor (12) configured to detect a vibration progression (para. [0024], lines 24-25); and
said evaluation device (para. [0015], lines 12-13) configured to derive mechanical properties (para. [0016], lines 1-2) of the overhead line (14) from the vibration progression (para. [0015], lines 12-13).
In regards to claim 12, Zhang discloses the measuring system according to claim 11, wherein said non- contacting sensor (12) is an optical sensor (para. [0015], line 10) or a laser light-section sensor or a 3D laser scanner.
In regards to claim 17, Zhang discloses a method for measuring elasticity of an overhead line of a track, the method comprising:
providing the measuring system according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above);
using said mechanical excitation device (10) to set the overhead line into vibration (para. [0025], lines 9-13);
using said non-contacting sensor (12) to detect the vibration progression in a measuring point (para. [0024], lines 24-25) of the overhead line (14); and
using said evaluation device (para. [0015], lines 12-13) to derive at least one mechanical property (para. [0016], lines 1-2) of the overhead line (14) from the vibration progression (para. [0015], lines 12-13).
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) 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 111208022 A).
In regards to claim 13, Zhang teaches the measuring system according to claim 11, wherein said excitation device (10) includes an
While Zhang does not explicitly teach an actuating drive able to adjust the triggering unit relative to the base unit, Zhang does teach changing the location of excitation of the overhead line by adjusting the position of the device (para. [0014], lines 10-11, “adjusting the position of the support”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an actuating drive to adjust the triggering unit relative to the base unit with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the manual labor needed to operate the excitation device, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
In regards to claim 16, Zhang teaches the measuring system according to claim 11, wherein said non- contacting sensor (12) is a first non-contacting sensor (para. [0015], line 10), and
Zhang does not explicitly teach a second non-contacting sensor is disposed in a further measuring point at a defined distance from said first non-contacting sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second non-contacting sensor disposed at a further measuring point from said first non-contacting sensor with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the amount of data gathered for evaluation and analysis, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
In regards to claim 19, Zhang teaches the method according to claim 17, which further comprises providing said non-contacting sensor (12) as a first non-contacting sensor (para. [0015], line 10), and
Zhang does not explicitly teach a second non-contacting sensor to detect vibrations in a measuring point disposed at a distance from said first non-contacting sensor in a longitudinal direction of the overhead line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second non-contacting sensor disposed at a further measuring point in a longitudinal direction from said first non-contacting sensor with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the amount of data gathered for evaluation and analysis, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 111208022 A) in view of Watabe (US 20090320554 A1).
In regards to claim 20, Zhang teaches a
the measuring system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 11 above)
Zhang does not teach a vehicle frame; rail-based running gears supporting said vehicle frame for moving said vehicle frame on a track; and the measuring system being disposed on the track construction vehicle.
Watabe teaches a vehicle frame (1) (Fig. 1); rail-based running gears (as seen in Fig. 1) supporting said vehicle frame (1) for moving said vehicle frame on a track (4); and the measuring system (5) disposed on the track construction vehicle (as seen in Fig. 1).
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 measuring system of Zhang to include a track construction vehicle as taught by Watabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of testing various locations along the length of the overhead-line (see Watabe, abstract, lines 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 14, while Zhang teaches the measuring system according to claim 13, wherein said excitation device (10) includes a
Zhang does not teach wherein said excitation device includes a triggering drive, a holder and a hook, said hook being adjustable relative to said holder by said triggering drive.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the excitation device of Zhang to include a triggering drive, a holder, and a hook as the Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the excitation device of Zhang to meet the claimed limitation.
Thus, claim 14 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. However claim 14 is objected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and further claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 15, while Zhang teaches the measuring system according to claim 13, wherein said excitation device (10) includes
Zhang does not teach wherein said excitation device includes a triggering drive, and said triggering unit includes a line receiving device and a holding element being adjustable relative to said line receiving device by said triggering drive.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the excitation device of Zhang to include a triggering drive, a line receiving device, and a holding element as the Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the excitation device of Zhang to meet the claimed limitation.
Thus, claim 15 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. However claim 15 is objected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and further claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 18, while Zhang teaches the method according to claim 17, which further comprises using said non-contacting sensor (12) to detect vibrations in a measuring point (para. [0024], lines 24-25) of a contact wire (14) and
Zhang does not teach synchronously detecting vibrations in a measuring point of a carrying cable and the Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the system of Zhang to meet the claimed limitation.
Another reference, Hasegawa (JP 2001030806 A), teaches a carrying cable (22) (Fig. 2), and detecting vibrations (see machine translation, para. [0004], lines 2-4). However, Hasegawa teaches detecting vibrations only in a contact wire (21) (para. [0005], lines 15-17) and not in a carrying cable.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Zhang to include the carrying cable of Hasegawa while further ensuring that the system synchronously detects vibrations in said carrying cable as well as the contact wire as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 18 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. However claim 18 is objected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (CN 111174961 A) discloses a tension optical measurement method based on modal analysis.
Wei (CN 109238536 A) discloses a radar-based cable tension measurement method and system.
He (CN 107300432 A) discloses a method for measuring vibration in a cable.
Peng (CN 106932135 A) discloses a cable testing method with vibrating frequency weighting.
Watanabe (JP 2012208095 A) discloses a trolley wire measuring method and device.
Hulin (DE 102009057877 A1) discloses a method for image-guided optical measurement of forces.
Arnold (US 4565099 A) discloses a method and apparatus for determining tension in a cable.
Conoval (US 4158962 A) discloses a cable tension measuring apparatus.
Miley (US 3871217 A) discloses a continuous cable tension monitor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615