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 Claims
Claims 1-19 pending.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been considered. Rejections are overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, applicant argues (remarks pg. 10-11) that Maslen does not teach a lead cable and Gray does not teach an impedance matcher. However, Examiner submits that Gray teaches a lead cable and Maslen teaches an impedance matcher. The combination of references therefore teach the limitations as claimed. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for detailed mapping and analysis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 14-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas in view of US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner and further in view of US 20100211348 A1 to Gray and further in view of US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen.
Regarding claim 1,
US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas teaches:
A cable fault detection system for testing a target cable, ([0016] – “The subject of the invention is thus a reflectometry system for analyzing faults in a transmission line”) comprising:
a (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) signal generator for generating an (Fig. 2; [0055] – “signal generator GEN”)
a first amplifier connected with the (Fig. 2; [0055] – “amplifier PA”)
([0057] – “the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected into the transmission line L.” [0073-74] – “first on/off switch INT.sub.1 to closed position so that the amplified signal is injected into the transmission line L via the coupler CPL.sub.1… The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1” )
a mixer; ([0074] – “In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
a first signal distributor and a second signal distributor, the first signal distributor connected with the first amplifier, the second signal distributor, and the mixer, and directing the amplified FMCW signal to the mixer and to the second signal distributor, (Fig. 2; [0061] – “deciding unit ORD for controlling the first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and, optionally, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2” [0057] – “INT.sub.1 positioned on the path between the output of the amplifier PA and the first directional coupler CPL.sub.1.” ([0058] – “When the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 is in closed position, the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected as input into the analog-digital converter ADC directly.”) [0059] – “The first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and/or the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be replaced by any equivalent connecting/disconnecting device, for example any other type of switch.”) the second signal distributor connected with the first signal distributor, ([0074] – “The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and transmitted along the processing chain to the correlator. In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
a data processer connected with the mixer for performing cable fault detection using ([0074] – “the reflectogram obtained as output from the correlator COR comprises a first amplitude peak that corresponds to the signal generated and transmitted via the connection 201 and possibly other amplitude peaks corresponding to faults in the transmission line, from which faults the signal is reflected. The first amplitude peak may be used as reference to estimate the distance between the point of injection of the signal and a potential fault.” [0080-81] – “a processing unit… to display, on a human-machine interface, the results of the computations carried out by the correlator COR and in particular the reflectogram R(t) and/or the information on the detection and location of faults in the cable... The method according to the invention, and in particular the digital processing modules GEN, PRD, ORD, ACQ, COR, may be implemented in a processor,”)
US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner teaches:
a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) signal generator for generating an FMCW signal; ([0043-45] – “reflection measurements may be performed in the frequency domain, such that a frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) may be applied… The method based on frequency domain reflectometry employs a generation of a signal having various controlled frequencies, and of measuring quantities relating to the frequencies and/or the phases (relative to the emitted signal) present in of the reflected signal. For example, in frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) reflectometry, the generated signal which is coupled into the cable 200 has a rapid frequency sweep that covers a predetermined frequency range.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Haffner’s known technique to Cabanillas’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas teaches a base method of cable fault detection in which analysis may be carried out in the frequency domain ([0004] – “Analysis of the signals returned to the point of injection allows information on the presence and location of these discontinuities, and therefore of potential faults, to be deduced therefrom. The analysis is conventionally carried out either in the time domain or in the frequency domain. These methods are referred to by the acronyms TDR (for time domain reflectometry) and FDR (for frequency domain reflectometry).”); (2) Haffner teaches a specific method of FMCW reflectometry for cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection (Haffner [0043] – “Compared to the time domain reflectometry, the frequency domain reflectometry may provide additional information about the critical conducting section 203 within the power cable 200 to be tested. By testing the power cable 200 using several frequencies, an extremely accurate information on the fault location may be obtained.”); and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
US 20100211348 A1 to Gray teaches:
a lead cable connected ([0004] – “measuring device is integrated with the other equipment on a testing cart or instrument car, and is connected via a testing lead, e.g. a connecting cable, with the test object that is to be tested.”) ([0023] – “forward signal emitted power is coupled by the coupler 3 through the separation filter 6 to the testing lead 7, and from there to the test object, i.e. the test cable 8.”) receiving a reflected signal corresponding to the ([0023] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4.”) compensating for mismatch between impedance of the lead cable and impedance of the target cable ([0034] – “impedance discontinuity at the transition or connection interface 11 from the testing lead 7 to the test object cable 8 is still present… calibrating with respect to the input impedance of the test object cable 8 rather than with the characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead 7. Thereby the impedance discontinuity at the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test object cable 8 is interpreted as a systematic fault and is compensated by the correction factors in the compensation process. The reflection from the interface 11 is thus no longer present in the resulting pulse diagram.”) or a length of the lead cable matching a bandwidth of the FMCW signal;
compensating for impedance mismatch between the second signal distributor and the lead cable; ([0023-31] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As will be explained below, the coupler 3 also typically allows some unintended cross-coupling of the return signal to the first channel Ch1 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As discussed above, the separation filter serves to couple the pulses bi-directionally between the circuit arrangement and the test cable, while decoupling or separating the high voltage supply power of the high voltage source from the test cable… the complex reflection factor r.sub.m is compensated according to the invention, to free it of the interfering influences of the separation filter 6 and the testing lead 7”)
a cable dictionary for testing the target cable; ([0010] – “It is further preferably provided according to the invention, that a memory or storage device is connected to the processor unit, and stores a database of previously determined pulse diagrams. Particularly, stored pulse diagrams were determined by measurements of various different standard test objects having various different discrete resistances, with known input impedances of these standardized test objects.”) and
a data processer connected with the mixer for performing cable fault detection using the cable dictionary and a received signal ([0010] – “The resulting standardized pulse diagrams stored in the database in the memory can then be used for the evaluation and interpretation of the actual test pulse diagrams that are produced when actually testing test objects such as electrical conductors to determine the location of faults therein.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gray’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection; (2) Gray teaches a specific method cable fault determination using a lead cable and a cable dictionary; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen teaches:
an impedance matcher, and
compensating for impedance mismatch with an impedance matcher ([0012, 25] – “Line Feed Resistor(s)--this or these provide the correct matching impedance for the line being tested. As previously mentioned, when a signal travelling along a transmission line encounters a change in characteristic, a reflection occurs. This is also true for a reflected wave returning to the TDR instrument. The instrument should therefore present an impedance characteristic sensibly close to the impedance characteristic of the line under test, if it is to avoid causing further unwanted signal reflections. The line feed resistor(s) is or are therefore provided to give the correct matching characteristic for the line under test. Multiple selections may be provided to cater for various line types.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Maslen’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities, wherein Gray teaches that impedance discontinuity must be compensated for (Gray [0010] – “The characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead generally does not correspond to the input impedance of the test object, so that an additional interfering reflection of the input signal typically arises at the location of the connection interface of the testing lead to the test object.” [0023] – “As also discussed above, the reflected return signal coming from the testing lead 7 and test cable 8 back to the circuit arrangement includes a reflection pulse that is reflected from the fault in the cable 8, but also a reflection from the open-circuit end 12 of the cable 8, as well as a reflection from the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test cable 8, and further interference due to an oscillation of the filter 6 superimposed on the reflected pulses.”); (2) Maslen teaches a specific method of using resistors as impedance matchers to avoid unwanted signal reflections; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with maximized signal transfer and more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the second signal distributor includes a power splitter or a directional coupler. ([0055] – “first directional coupler CPL.sub.1”)
Regarding claim 4,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gray further teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the first signal distributor includes a power splitter or a directional coupler. ([0023] – “the coupler 3 splits or separates the signals passing through it into a forward signal and a return signal, and respectively outputs corresponding forward and return signal components to the first channel Ch1 and second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gray’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection; (2) Gray teaches a specific method cable fault determination using a power splitter; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
The system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a baseband receiver and/or an analog to digital converter (ADC) connected with the mixer and the data processor. (Fig. 2; [0055] – “an analog-digital converter ADC,”)
Regarding claim 8,
Cabanillas teaches:
A method for cable fault detection for a target cable, ([0016] – “The subject of the invention is thus a reflectometry system for analyzing faults in a transmission line”) comprising:
generating a (Fig. 2; [0055] – “signal generator GEN”)
directing the ([0074] – “In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”) through a first signal distributor (Fig. 2; [0061] – “deciding unit ORD for controlling the first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and, optionally, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2” [0057] – “INT.sub.1 positioned on the path between the output of the amplifier PA and the first directional coupler CPL.sub.1.” ([0058] – “When the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 is in closed position, the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected as input into the analog-digital converter ADC directly.”) [0059] – “The first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and/or the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be replaced by any equivalent connecting/disconnecting device, for example any other type of switch.”) and ([0074] – “The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and transmitted along the processing chain to the correlator. In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
emitting the FMCW signal to the target cable ([0057] – “the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected into the transmission line L.”)
directing a reflected signal ([0073-74] – “first on/off switch INT.sub.1 to closed position so that the amplified signal is injected into the transmission line L via the coupler CPL.sub.1… The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1” )
directing the reflected signal ([0074] – “In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
directing a baseband signal from the mixer to a baseband receiver; ([claim 12] – “second directional coupler (CPL.sub.2) placed between the means (CPL.sub.1) for sampling the back-propagated signal and an input of the second converter (ADC), and arranged to connect an output of the amplifier (PA) to an input of the second converter (ADC).”)
directing the baseband signal from the baseband receiver to an analog to digital converter (ADC); ([0074] – “In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
directing a digitized baseband signal from the ADC to a data processor; (Fig. 2- ACQ, COR” [0081] – “digital processing modules GEN, PRD, ORD, ACQ, COR, may be implemented in a processor,”) and
performing the cable fault detection and localization using the digitized baseband signal ([0074] – “the reflectogram obtained as output from the correlator COR comprises a first amplitude peak that corresponds to the signal generated and transmitted via the connection 201 and possibly other amplitude peaks corresponding to faults in the transmission line, from which faults the signal is reflected. The first amplitude peak may be used as reference to estimate the distance between the point of injection of the signal and a potential fault.” [0080-81] – “a processing unit… to display, on a human-machine interface, the results of the computations carried out by the correlator COR and in particular the reflectogram R(t) and/or the information on the detection and location of faults in the cable... The method according to the invention, and in particular the digital processing modules GEN, PRD, ORD, ACQ, COR, may be implemented in a processor,”)
Haffner teaches:
generating a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) signal ([0043-45] – “reflection measurements may be performed in the frequency domain, such that a frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) may be applied… The method based on frequency domain reflectometry employs a generation of a signal having various controlled frequencies, and of measuring quantities relating to the frequencies and/or the phases (relative to the emitted signal) present in of the reflected signal. For example, in frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) reflectometry, the generated signal which is coupled into the cable 200 has a rapid frequency sweep that covers a predetermined frequency range.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Haffner’s known technique to Cabanillas’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas teaches a base method of cable fault detection in which analysis may be carried out in the frequency domain ([0004] – “Analysis of the signals returned to the point of injection allows information on the presence and location of these discontinuities, and therefore of potential faults, to be deduced therefrom. The analysis is conventionally carried out either in the time domain or in the frequency domain. These methods are referred to by the acronyms TDR (for time domain reflectometry) and FDR (for frequency domain reflectometry).”); (2) Haffner teaches a specific method of FMCW reflectometry for cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection (Haffner [0043] – “Compared to the time domain reflectometry, the frequency domain reflectometry may provide additional information about the critical conducting section 203 within the power cable 200 to be tested. By testing the power cable 200 using several frequencies, an extremely accurate information on the fault location may be obtained.”); and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Gray teaches:
directing the signal to a lead cable, ([0004] – “measuring device is integrated with the other equipment on a testing cart or instrument car, and is connected via a testing lead, e.g. a connecting cable, with the test object that is to be tested.”) compensating for mismatch of impedance ([0023-31] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As will be explained below, the coupler 3 also typically allows some unintended cross-coupling of the return signal to the first channel Ch1 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As discussed above, the separation filter serves to couple the pulses bi-directionally between the circuit arrangement and the test cable, while decoupling or separating the high voltage supply power of the high voltage source from the test cable… the complex reflection factor r.sub.m is compensated according to the invention, to free it of the interfering influences of the separation filter 6 and the testing lead 7”)
emitting the signal to the target cable at one end of the lead cable, ([0023] – “forward signal emitted power is coupled by the coupler 3 through the separation filter 6 to the testing lead 7, and from there to the test object, i.e. the test cable 8.”) compensating for mismatch between impedance of the lead cable and impedance of the target cable ([0034] – “impedance discontinuity at the transition or connection interface 11 from the testing lead 7 to the test object cable 8 is still present… calibrating with respect to the input impedance of the test object cable 8 rather than with the characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead 7. Thereby the impedance discontinuity at the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test object cable 8 is interpreted as a systematic fault and is compensated by the correction factors in the compensation process. The reflection from the interface 11 is thus no longer present in the resulting pulse diagram.”) or a length of the lead cable matching a bandwidth of the FMCW signal;
directing a reflected signal from the lead cable ([0023] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4.”)
performing cable fault detection and localization using the signal and information retrieved from a cable dictionary. ([0010] – “It is further preferably provided according to the invention, that a memory or storage device is connected to the processor unit, and stores a database of previously determined pulse diagrams. Particularly, stored pulse diagrams were determined by measurements of various different standard test objects having various different discrete resistances, with known input impedances of these standardized test objects.”) ([0010] – “The resulting standardized pulse diagrams stored in the database in the memory can then be used for the evaluation and interpretation of the actual test pulse diagrams that are produced when actually testing test objects such as electrical conductors to determine the location of faults therein.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gray’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection; (2) Gray teaches a specific method cable fault determination using a lead cable and a cable dictionary; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Maslen teaches:
an impedance matcher
([0012, 25] – “Line Feed Resistor(s)--this or these provide the correct matching impedance for the line being tested. As previously mentioned, when a signal travelling along a transmission line encounters a change in characteristic, a reflection occurs. This is also true for a reflected wave returning to the TDR instrument. The instrument should therefore present an impedance characteristic sensibly close to the impedance characteristic of the line under test, if it is to avoid causing further unwanted signal reflections. The line feed resistor(s) is or are therefore provided to give the correct matching characteristic for the line under test. Multiple selections may be provided to cater for various line types.”)
compensating for impedance mismatch with an impedance matcher ([0012, 25] – “Line Feed Resistor(s)--this or these provide the correct matching impedance for the line being tested. As previously mentioned, when a signal travelling along a transmission line encounters a change in characteristic, a reflection occurs. This is also true for a reflected wave returning to the TDR instrument. The instrument should therefore present an impedance characteristic sensibly close to the impedance characteristic of the line under test, if it is to avoid causing further unwanted signal reflections. The line feed resistor(s) is or are therefore provided to give the correct matching characteristic for the line under test. Multiple selections may be provided to cater for various line types.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Maslen’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities, wherein Gray teaches that impedance discontinuity must be compensated for (Gray [0010] – “The characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead generally does not correspond to the input impedance of the test object, so that an additional interfering reflection of the input signal typically arises at the location of the connection interface of the testing lead to the test object.” [0023] – “As also discussed above, the reflected return signal coming from the testing lead 7 and test cable 8 back to the circuit arrangement includes a reflection pulse that is reflected from the fault in the cable 8, but also a reflection from the open-circuit end 12 of the cable 8, as well as a reflection from the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test cable 8, and further interference due to an oscillation of the filter 6 superimposed on the reflected pulses.”); (2) Maslen teaches a specific method of using resistors as impedance matchers to avoid unwanted signal reflections; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with maximized signal transfer and more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Gray further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the first signal distributor includes a power splitter or a directional coupler. ([0023] – “the coupler 3 splits or separates the signals passing through it into a forward signal and a return signal, and respectively outputs corresponding forward and return signal components to the first channel Ch1 and second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gray’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection; (2) Gray teaches a specific method cable fault determination using a power splitter; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the second signal distributor includes a circulator. ([0055] – “first directional coupler CPL.sub.1”)
Regarding claim 14,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, further comprising:
using a target cable as an antenna's radiation element to detect a length value of the target cable. ([0005] – “The cable in question may be a coaxial cable, a twin-lead cable, a parallel-line cable, a twisted-pair cable or any other type of cable provided that it is possible to inject into the cable at some point a reflectometry signal and to measure its reflection at the same point or at another point.” [0019] – “or injecting the amplified signal into the transmission line” [0043-46] – “the position d.sub.DF of a fault in the cable L, in other words its distance to the point of injection of the signal, may be obtained… A first method consists in applying the relationship relating distance and time: d.sub.DF=V.sub.g.Math.t.sub.DF where V.sub.g is the speed of propagation of the signal through the cable. Another possible method consists in applying a proportionality relationship of the type d.sub.DF/t.sub.DF=L.sub.c/t.sub.0 where L.sub.c is the length of the cable and t.sub.0 is the time, measured on the reflectogram, between the amplitude peak corresponding to the impedance discontinuity at the point of injection and the amplitude peak corresponding to the reflection of the signal from the end of the cable.t”)
Regarding claim 15,
Cabanillas teaches:
A cable fault detection system for testing a target cable, ([0016] – “The subject of the invention is thus a reflectometry system for analyzing faults in a transmission line”) comprising:
a (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) signal generator for generating an (Fig. 2; [0055] – “signal generator GEN”)
([0057] – “the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected into the transmission line L.” [0073-74] – “first on/off switch INT.sub.1 to closed position so that the amplified signal is injected into the transmission line L via the coupler CPL.sub.1… The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1” )
a mixer converting the reflected signal to a baseband signal; ([0074] – “In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
a first signal distributor; (Fig. 2; [0061] – “deciding unit ORD for controlling the first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and, optionally, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2” [0057] – “INT.sub.1 positioned on the path between the output of the amplifier PA and the first directional coupler CPL.sub.1.” ([0058] – “When the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 is in closed position, the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected as input into the analog-digital converter ADC directly.”) [0059] – “The first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and/or the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be replaced by any equivalent connecting/disconnecting device, for example any other type of switch.”)
a second signal distributor, ([0074] – “The back-propagated signal is sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and transmitted along the processing chain to the correlator. In the analyzing phase, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be controlled to open position or to closed position. If it is in closed position, then the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”) the first signal distributor connected with the FMCW signal generator, the second signal distributor, and the mixer, and directing the FMCW signal to the mixer as a local oscillator and to the second signal distributor for transmitting, and the second signal distributor connected with the first signal distributor, (Fig. 2; [0061] – “deciding unit ORD for controlling the first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and, optionally, the second on/off switch INT.sub.2” [0057] – “INT.sub.1 positioned on the path between the output of the amplifier PA and the first directional coupler CPL.sub.1.” ([0058] – “When the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 is in closed position, the signal output from the amplifier PA is injected as input into the analog-digital converter ADC directly.”) [0059] – “The first on/off switch INT.sub.1 and/or the second on/off switch INT.sub.2 may be replaced by any equivalent connecting/disconnecting device, for example any other type of switch.”)
and
a data processer connected with the mixer for performing cable fault detection using a received signal from the mixer. ([0074] – “the reflectogram obtained as output from the correlator COR comprises a first amplitude peak that corresponds to the signal generated and transmitted via the connection 201 and possibly other amplitude peaks corresponding to faults in the transmission line, from which faults the signal is reflected. The first amplitude peak may be used as reference to estimate the distance between the point of injection of the signal and a potential fault.” [0080-81] – “a processing unit… to display, on a human-machine interface, the results of the computations carried out by the correlator COR and in particular the reflectogram R(t) and/or the information on the detection and location of faults in the cable... The method according to the invention, and in particular the digital processing modules GEN, PRD, ORD, ACQ, COR, may be implemented in a processor,”)
US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner teaches:
a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) signal generator for generating an FMCW signal; ([0043-45] – “reflection measurements may be performed in the frequency domain, such that a frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) may be applied… The method based on frequency domain reflectometry employs a generation of a signal having various controlled frequencies, and of measuring quantities relating to the frequencies and/or the phases (relative to the emitted signal) present in of the reflected signal. For example, in frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) reflectometry, the generated signal which is coupled into the cable 200 has a rapid frequency sweep that covers a predetermined frequency range.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Haffner’s known technique to Cabanillas’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas teaches a base method of cable fault detection in which analysis may be carried out in the frequency domain ([0004] – “Analysis of the signals returned to the point of injection allows information on the presence and location of these discontinuities, and therefore of potential faults, to be deduced therefrom. The analysis is conventionally carried out either in the time domain or in the frequency domain. These methods are referred to by the acronyms TDR (for time domain reflectometry) and FDR (for frequency domain reflectometry).”); (2) Haffner teaches a specific method of FMCW reflectometry for cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection (Haffner [0043] – “Compared to the time domain reflectometry, the frequency domain reflectometry may provide additional information about the critical conducting section 203 within the power cable 200 to be tested. By testing the power cable 200 using several frequencies, an extremely accurate information on the fault location may be obtained.”); and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
US 20100211348 A1 to Gray teaches:
a lead cable connected ([0004] – “measuring device is integrated with the other equipment on a testing cart or instrument car, and is connected via a testing lead, e.g. a connecting cable, with the test object that is to be tested.”) ([0023] – “forward signal emitted power is coupled by the coupler 3 through the separation filter 6 to the testing lead 7, and from there to the test object, i.e. the test cable 8.”) receiving a reflected signal corresponding to the ([0023] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4.”) compensating for mismatch between impedance of the lead cable and impedance of the target cable ([0034] – “impedance discontinuity at the transition or connection interface 11 from the testing lead 7 to the test object cable 8 is still present… calibrating with respect to the input impedance of the test object cable 8 rather than with the characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead 7. Thereby the impedance discontinuity at the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test object cable 8 is interpreted as a systematic fault and is compensated by the correction factors in the compensation process. The reflection from the interface 11 is thus no longer present in the resulting pulse diagram.”) or a length of the lead cable matching a bandwidth of the FMCW signal;
compensating for impedance mismatch between the second signal distributor and the lead cable; ([0023-31] – “the reflected return signal coming back from the test object cable 8 and the testing lead 7 through the separation filter 6 is coupled through the bi-directional coupler 3 into the second channel Ch2 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As will be explained below, the coupler 3 also typically allows some unintended cross-coupling of the return signal to the first channel Ch1 of the measured signal detection circuit 4. As discussed above, the separation filter serves to couple the pulses bi-directionally between the circuit arrangement and the test cable, while decoupling or separating the high voltage supply power of the high voltage source from the test cable… the complex reflection factor r.sub.m is compensated according to the invention, to free it of the interfering influences of the separation filter 6 and the testing lead 7”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gray’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection; (2) Gray teaches a specific method cable fault determination using a lead cable and a cable dictionary; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen teaches:
an impedance matcher, and
compensating for impedance mismatch with an impedance matcher ([0012, 25] – “Line Feed Resistor(s)--this or these provide the correct matching impedance for the line being tested. As previously mentioned, when a signal travelling along a transmission line encounters a change in characteristic, a reflection occurs. This is also true for a reflected wave returning to the TDR instrument. The instrument should therefore present an impedance characteristic sensibly close to the impedance characteristic of the line under test, if it is to avoid causing further unwanted signal reflections. The line feed resistor(s) is or are therefore provided to give the correct matching characteristic for the line under test. Multiple selections may be provided to cater for various line types.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Maslen’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities, wherein Gray teaches that impedance discontinuity must be compensated for (Gray [0010] – “The characteristic wave impedance of the testing lead generally does not correspond to the input impedance of the test object, so that an additional interfering reflection of the input signal typically arises at the location of the connection interface of the testing lead to the test object.” [0023] – “As also discussed above, the reflected return signal coming from the testing lead 7 and test cable 8 back to the circuit arrangement includes a reflection pulse that is reflected from the fault in the cable 8, but also a reflection from the open-circuit end 12 of the cable 8, as well as a reflection from the interface 11 between the testing lead 7 and the test cable 8, and further interference due to an oscillation of the filter 6 superimposed on the reflected pulses.”); (2) Maslen teaches a specific method of using resistors as impedance matchers to avoid unwanted signal reflections; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with maximized signal transfer and more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The system according to claim 15, further comprising:
a first amplifier connected with the signal generator and the first signal distributor for amplifying the signal. (Fig. 2; [0055] – “amplifier PA”)
Regarding claim 19,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The system according to claim 15, further comprising:
a baseband receiver and/or an analog to digital converter (ADC) connected with the mixer and the data processor. ([0074] – “the signal input into the analog-digital converter ADC is the sum of the signal sampled by the coupler CPL.sub.1 and of the signal transmitted via the connection 201.”)
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas in view of US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner and further in view of US 20100211348 A1 to Gray and further in view of US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen as discussed above and further in view of US 20220247360 A1 to Hampel.
Regarding claim 2,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Hampell teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the second signal distributor includes a circulator. ([0202-203] – “A circulator Z1 is connected to the output of the impedance converter AN1 (see FIG. 1),… with the aid of the circulator Z1, the returning HF power is measured with a first directional coupler R1 (see FIG. 1)… It is thus possible to detect a physical and electrical fault (e.g. cable break,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Hampel’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with a directional coupler; (2) Hampel teaches a specific method of using both a circulator and directional coupler for detecting cable faults; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Hampell teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the second signal distributor includes a power splitter or a directional coupler. ([0202-203] – “A circulator Z1 is connected to the output of the impedance converter AN1 (see FIG. 1),… with the aid of the circulator Z1, the returning HF power is measured with a first directional coupler R1 (see FIG. 1)… It is thus possible to detect a physical and electrical fault (e.g. cable break,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Hampel’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with a directional coupler; (2) Hampel teaches a specific method of using both a circulator and directional coupler for detecting cable faults; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas in view of US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner and further in view of US 20100211348 A1 to Gray and further in view of US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen as discussed above and further in view of US 20040232919 A1 to Lacey.
Regarding claim 5,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Lacey teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the cable dictionary includes cable information corresponding to a plurality of cables, respectively. ([0032-34] – “As the impedance of the cable was identified and confirmed in the steps above, the multiplexer 4 chooses the first Pin/Cable, looks at its stored impedance and then scans the results of the remaining Pin/Cables until it finds the closest matched impedance.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lacey’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities; (2) Lacey teaches a specific method of stored impedances for use in cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more widely applicable fault detection (Lacey [0032-34] – “The system allows for multiple cable types of known and unknown impedance to be processed.”) ; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Lacey teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the cable dictionary includes cable data corresponding to a plurality of cables, respectively. ([0032-34] – “As the impedance of the cable was identified and confirmed in the steps above, the multiplexer 4 chooses the first Pin/Cable, looks at its stored impedance and then scans the results of the remaining Pin/Cables until it finds the closest matched impedance.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lacey’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities; (2) Lacey teaches a specific method of stored impedances for use in cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more widely applicable fault detection (Lacey [0032-34] – “The system allows for multiple cable types of known and unknown impedance to be processed.”) ; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Lacey teaches:
The system according to claim 15, further comprising:
a cable dictionary connected with the data processor and including cable information corresponding to the target cable. ([0032-34] – “As the impedance of the cable was identified and confirmed in the steps above, the multiplexer 4 chooses the first Pin/Cable, looks at its stored impedance and then scans the results of the remaining Pin/Cables until it finds the closest matched impedance.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lacey’s known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities; (2) Lacey teaches a specific method of stored impedances for use in cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more widely applicable fault detection (Lacey [0032-34] – “The system allows for multiple cable types of known and unknown impedance to be processed.”) ; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas in view of US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner and further in view of US 20100211348 A1 to Gray and further in view of US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen as discussed above and further in view of US 20030125893 A1 to Furse.
Regarding claim 6,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Furse teaches:
The system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second amplifier connected with the second signal distributor and the mixer for amplifying the reflected signal. ([0065] – “When the input signal encounters a termination of the CUT 110, the input signal is reflected. The reflected input signal is transmitted to a directional coupler 108, and then to an amplifier 112 along transmission path 122. The reflected input signal is amplified in this embodiment so that it approximately matches the magnitude of the input signal that was transmitted to the mixer 114. After the reflected input signal has been amplified, it is also sent to the mixer 114 along transmission path 124.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Furse known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities; (2) Furse teaches a specific method for use in cable fault detection of amplification of reflection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more widely applicable fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Furse teaches:
The system according to claim 15, further comprising:
a second amplifier connected with the second signal distributor and the mixer for amplifying the reflected signal. ([0065] – “When the input signal encounters a termination of the CUT 110, the input signal is reflected. The reflected input signal is transmitted to a directional coupler 108, and then to an amplifier 112 along transmission path 122. The reflected input signal is amplified in this embodiment so that it approximately matches the magnitude of the input signal that was transmitted to the mixer 114. After the reflected input signal has been amplified, it is also sent to the mixer 114 along transmission path 124.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Furse known technique to Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches a base FMCW reflectometry method of cable fault detection with impedance discontinuities; (2) Furse teaches a specific method for use in cable fault detection of amplification of reflection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more widely applicable fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210148962 A1 to Cabanillas in view of US 20110316559 A1 to Haffner and further in view of US 20100211348 A1 to Gray and further in view of US 20100073014 A1 to Maslen as discussed above and further in view of US 20050234666 A1 to Taylor.
Regarding claim 13,
Cabanillas in view of Haffner and further in view of Gray and further in view of Maslen teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Cabanillas further teaches:
The method according to claim 8, further comprising:
performing a plurality of measurements
averaging results of the plurality of measurements to obtain a fault location value. ([0042] – “An acquisition ACQ is carried out by taking, for example, an average of the signal over a plurality of periods.”)
Taylor teaches:
performing a plurality of measurements with different waveforms; (Fig. 15; [0214-216] – “at 252 collects measurements of the output powers over all frequencies”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Taylor’s known technique to Cabanillas’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Cabanillas teaches a base method of cable fault detection in which analysis may be carried out in the frequency domain ([0004] – “Analysis of the signals returned to the point of injection allows information on the presence and location of these discontinuities, and therefore of potential faults, to be deduced therefrom. The analysis is conventionally carried out either in the time domain or in the frequency domain. These methods are referred to by the acronyms TDR (for time domain reflectometry) and FDR (for frequency domain reflectometry).”); (2) Taylor teaches a specific method of reflectometry for cable fault detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with more robust fault detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights