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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed June 16, 2023.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 17, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (DENMARK PA202070846) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/EP2021/085450 filed December 13, 2021.
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
21836497
12/13/2021
EP 4264350 A1
10/25/2023
EP
PCT/EP2021/085450
12/13/2021
WO 2022128894 A1
06/23/2022
The claims filed March 9, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1 & 23
1-5, 7-10, 12, & 14-23
Cancelled:
2
6, 11, 13, & 24-37
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1 and 23 were amended.
Claim 2 was cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6012621 of Hoium et al. (Hoium, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,390,841 of Horiuchi et al. (Horiuchi).
With respect to claim 1, Hoium (Fig. 1) discloses an apparatus (20) for installing a cable (22) into a duct (26), with the assistance of a fluid within the duct (26), the apparatus comprising:
a blowing chamber (44) having
a cable inlet (right side of 44 where it meets 22),
a cable outlet (at 28, generally), and
a fluid inlet (lower side of 44 where it meets air line 46a) for receiving a supply of pressurized fluid,
wherein the cable outlet is configured to be connected to the duct (per Fig. 1 left);
a pushing drive (drive assembly 40 with upper 62 and lower 60 tractor drives);
a first conveyer part (60) and a second conveyer part (62),
wherein the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) are arranged at opposing sides of a cable guidance space (per the center of Fig. 1) and
wherein one or both of the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) are configured to be driven by the pushing drive of the apparatus and thereby induce a driving force (F1) onto a part of the cable arranged in the cable guidance space ("In a preferred embodiment, an endless chain in each assembly 60, 62 is driven by hydraulic motors 64, 66, respectively, so as to frictionally engage cable 22 and apply the motive pushing force to cable 22." col. 5, ll. 34 and adjacent.),
a clamping arrangement configured to control one or both of the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) (per above re the clamp cylinder 70);
a sensor arrangement (48, 68) for providing one or more sensor input;
a clamping force control comprising one or more controllers ("the control system of apparatus 20 includes control subsystems for: monitoring and controlling the speed of lower and upper tractor drive assemblies 60, 62; monitoring the speed of cable 22; monitoring and controlling system air pressure; and monitoring and controlling the hold down system, such as clamp cylinder 70." col. 6, ll. 18 and adjacent.),
wherein the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement based on the one or more sensor input ("Apparatus 20 reduces or avoids cable damage (crush, column, and slippage), but allows for sufficiently long runs of continuous cable to be installed. Such balance comes from monitoring and controlling the normal force applied to cable 22, the speed of cable 22, and the speed of cable drive assembly 40." col. 6, ll. 13 and adjacent.),
so as to control a clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) according to a first clamping setting while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable (according to the foregoing re col. 6, ll. 13 and adjacent.).
Hoium as set forth above does not disclose:
the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor.
Horiuchi discloses a method of drawing large-size elongate cable for installation that includes (Figs. 2 and 6, col. 4, l. 56 - col. 5, l. 28 and adjacent):
"In response to the speed command signal, the AC servo driver 25a energizes the servomotor 14a to actuate the cable drawing machine 12a."
As such, use of servomotors in cable installation systems is seen as known in the art. Use of such servomotors is not seen as limited by any specific application, but usable for any application requiring or allowing displacement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a servomotor along the lines of Hoium in a system according to Hoium as set forth above in order to controllably displace cable installation elements, including a clamping drive unit. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable installation device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor.
With respect to claim 3, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to move one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part towards and away from the cable guidance space so as to control an applied clamping force,
based on said clamping setting and the one or more sensor input.
Hoium is seen as so configured.
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because Hoium as set forth above as set forth above provides the structure of claim 3, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 3.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
With respect to claim 4, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to apply a higher clamping force onto the cable (2), such as according to a second,
higher clamping setting which exceeds the first clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with.
Hoium is seen as so configured. Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 5, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, including one wherein
the predefined criteria comprises a detection and/or estimation of slippage between a jacket of the cable (2) and at least one of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part.
Claim 5 requires a device constructed according to its immediate parent claim, claim 4, to be operated in a certain manner.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Consequently, claim 5 is rejected on the same grounds as its immediate parent claim, claim 4, as not being differentiated from it.
Below and herein, this analysis is referred to as “intended use”.
With respect to claim 7, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to increase the applied clamping setting until a maximum clamping setting is reached.
Intended use per claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 8, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is configured to be at least 20% below a predefined maximum clamping setting for the cable.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 9, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to switch between selectable clamping settings, and/or to calculate a higher clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 10, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the apparatus comprises a data storage comprising information of one or more selectable clamping settings.
"Hydraulics allow such normal force to be preset, and consistently repeated during operation." col. 2, ll. 39 and adjacent. References to the prior art are based on the last antecedent.
With respect to claim 12, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the apparatus comprises a user interface, and
wherein the user interface enables direct and/or indirect selection of a clamping setting between a plurality of selectable clamping settings.
Referring now to FIGS. 22 and 23, various hydraulic control components of control assembly 52 are also illustrated with respect to frame 50. . . . Control module 276 also includes a manually operated up/down control lever 282 for controlling clamp cylinder 70 via hydraulic directional control valve 258 (FIG. 20). col. 11, ll. 5 and adjacent.
With respect to claim 14, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, including one wherein
an increase of clamping force (Fc) to exceed the first clamping force setting is configured to be provided by the clamping force control while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable and during installation of the cable into the duct.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 15, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the clamping force control comprises a first controller comprising a first data processor, and a second controller comprising a second data processor,
wherein the first controller is configured to communicate clamping settings to the second controller based on one or more predefined criteria, and
wherein the second controller is configured to control the clamping arrangement according to the communicated clamping setting and based on the one or more sensor input while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable.
Automating a manual activity is not seen as sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.04 (III).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide automation in a system according to Hoium as set forth above in order to standardize or make less burdensome use of the device.
With respect to claim 16, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part according to clamping setting(s) by a feedback control loop,
based on sensor input such as sensor input representative of the present clamping force (Fc) acting on the cable and/or sensor input representative of a slippage between the jacket of the cable (2) and either the first conveyer part of the second conveyer part .
Intended use.
With respect to claim 17, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control a clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part according to a plurality of different,
changing settings during a cable installation after the cable has entered the duct inlet and before the cable exits an outlet of the duct (3).
Intended use.
With respect to claim 18, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is an initial clamping setting representing an initial,
lower clamping force to be induced upon startup of the installation of the cable (2) into the duct (3).
Intended use.
With respect to claim 19, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to apply a lower clamping force onto the cable (2), according to a lower clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with during installation of the cable into the duct.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 20, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
a controller is configured to control the pushing drive to reduce the velocity of which the cable is introduced into the duct by at least 30% but not stop the pushing drive unit,
when the clamping setting reaches a predefined level.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 21, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 20, including one wherein
the reduction in velocity is configured to be provided if a slippage between the jacket of the cable (2) and at least one of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is detected,
based on sensor input,
to be above a certain amount.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 22, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is configured to be at least 30% below a predefined maximum clamping setting for the cable.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 23, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses a method of installing a cable into a duct (3), the method including one comprising:
providing an apparatus (1), the apparatus comprising:
-a blowing chamber having a cable inlet,
a cable outlet, and
a fluid inlet for receiving a supply of pressurized fluid;
,
-a pushing drive;
-a first conveyer part and a second conveyer part,
wherein the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part are arranged at opposing sides of a cable guidance space and wherein one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part are configured to be driven by the pushing drive of the apparatus and thereby induce a driving force (F1) onto a part of the cable arranged in the cable guidance space,
wherein one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is configured to be moved towards and away from the cable guidance space;
-a clamping arrangement configured to control one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part, the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor;
-a sensor arrangement for providing one or more sensor input;
-a clamping force control system comprising one or more controllers;
the method further comprising:
-connecting the duct (3) to the cable outlet to allow fluid to enter from the blowing chamber and into the duct;
-providing one or more data inputs, and
wherein one or more initial clamping settings for an initial clamping force (Fc) to be applied to the cable (2) by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is provided based on the one or more data inputs,-arranging the cable in an installation space;
-providing a fluid flow into the duct (3) through the blowing chamber; and
-starting the pushing drive to induce the driving force (F1) onto the cable;
wherein the clamping force control controls the clamping arrangement to induce the initial clamping force (Fc) on the cable in the cable guidance space by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part; and
wherein the clamping force control increases the clamping force applied onto the cable in the cable guidance space based on the one or more sensor input if predetermined criteria is complied with.
The method of claim 23 above would naturally occur in the use of a device as set forth in claim 1, above, in conjunction with the quote in the last clause.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant’s arguments are all based on the absence of a servomotor from Hoium. However, Horiuchi provides such a servomotor in the context of cable installation systems. Examiner sees no “teaching away” or any “rendering inoperative for intended purpose” in the cited references.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 6012621 A published January 11, 2000 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to cable installation or other systems using servos and related devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights