DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “wherein the processing circuitry is to:
generate multiple sets of further correlation values, each of the multiple sets of further
correlation values representing a correlation between the reconstructed reflection signal
and multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed; and
generate the correlation values based at least partially on an average of the multiple sets of
further correlation values.”
With respect to claim 4, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “wherein the processing circuitry is to:
determine a fault location responsive to a time between a peak in a correlation curve representing the correlation values and a no-fault peak in a no-fault correlation curve representing
correlation values between a no-fault reconstructed reflection signal and multiple signals
representing the transmit signal as variably delayed.”
With respect to claim 15, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “wherein generating the correlation values comprises
oversampling the reconstructed reflection signal and correlating the oversampled reconstructed
reflection signal to the multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed.”
Claim 16 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0058168 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Zang et al. discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a terminal to observe, responsive to provision of a transmit signal to a cable, a signal on the
cable (see Fig. 7, step 704; transmit a pulse signal to the cable; see Fig. 7 step 706, observe a signal received by the transmitter node responsive to the transmitted pulse; see abstract – Zang teaches transmitting a pulse signal a cable of a shared bus and observing a signal received in response to the transmitted signal); and a processing circuitry to: reconstruct a reflection signal at least partially responsive to the observed signal (Zang teaches sampling the observed signal and processing it to determine cable condition; see Fig. 7 step 708, sample the observed signal and obtain samples; see Fig. 7, step 714, determine fault condition based on sample signals); generate correlation values between the reconstructed reflection signal and multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (Zang discloses repeated sampling and comparison of observed signals relative to transmitted pulses using threshold processing to detect reflection. See Fig. 7, step 702, 710 and 712 – setting comparator thresholds and repeating sampling of signals responsive to transmitted pulses; see abstract describing determination of cable faults on sampled signals of transmitted pulses); and determine whether a fault is present in the cable at least partially responsive to the correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 214 – determining fault condition of the cable based on the sampled signals; see abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Zang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is to reconstruct the reflection signal at least partially responsive to: an energy detection signal generated responsive to the observed signal (Zang teaches detecting signal energy levels using comparator thresholds applied to the sampled signal; see Fig. 7; step 202 – set comparator threshold according to a first threshold; see Fig. 7 – steps 210 and 212; additional threshold comparisons for detecting signal states) and a receive signal generated responsive to the observed signal (Zang teaches observing and sampling the received signal responsive to the transmitted pulse; see Fig. 7, step 206 – observe signal received by transmitter node; see Fig. 7 step 208; sample the observed signal and obtain samples).
With respect to claim 5, Zang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a fault type responsive to a maximum peak in the correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714; Zang discloses a fault condition of the cable based on the transmitted pulse and on a state of samples of each set of obtained samples for the observed signals a number of sampling times).
With respect to claim 6, Zang discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is to determine an open fault type responsive to the maximum peak being positive in the correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714; Zang discloses a fault condition of the cable based on the transmitted pulse and on a state of samples of each set of obtained samples for the observed signals a number of sampling times).
With respect to claim 7, Zang discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a short fault type responsive to the maximum peak being negative in the correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714; Zang discloses a fault condition of the cable based on the transmitted pulse and on a state of samples of each set of obtained samples for the observed signals a number of sampling times).
With respect to claim 8, Zang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the correlation values are generated by oversampling the reconstructed reflection signal (Zang teaches sampling the observed signal obtained in response to a transmitted pulse; see Fig. 7, step 708 – sample the observed signal and obtain a set of samples; abstract – determining cable faults based on sampled signals) and correlating the oversampled reconstructed reflection signal to multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (see Fig. 7, steps 702-714; repeated comparison of signal samples associated with transmitted pulses).
With respect to claim 9, Zang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the correlation values comprises performing an XOR operation between the reconstructed reflection signal and one of multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (Zang teaches comparing sampled signals with transmitted pulse responses using threshold comparisons and signal processing logic, see Fig. 7, steps 702, 710 and 712 – comparator operations applied to sampled signals; step 714 determining fault condition based on signal processing of the sampled signals).
With respect to claim 10, Zang discloses a method, comprising:
providing a transmit signal to a cable (see Fig. 7, step 704; transmit a pulse signal to the cable; see Fig. 7 step 706, observe a signal received by the transmitter node responsive to the transmitted pulse; see abstract – Zang teaches transmitting a pulse signal a cable of a shared bus and observing a signal received in response to the transmitted signal);
observing, at least partially responsive to providing the transmit signal, a signal on the cable;
reconstructing a reflection signal responsive to the observed signal (Zang teaches sampling the observed signal and processing it to determine cable condition; see Fig. 7 step 708, sample the observed signal and obtain samples; see Fig. 7, step 714, determine fault condition based on sample signals); generating correlation values between the reconstructed reflection signal and multiple signals
representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (Zang teaches sampling the observed signal and processing it to determine cable condition; see Fig. 7 step 708, sample the observed signal and obtain samples; see Fig. 7, step 714, determine fault condition based on sample signals); and
determining whether a fault is present in the cable at least partially responsive to the generated
correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 214 – determining fault condition of the cable based on the sampled signals; see abstract).
With respect to claim 11, Zang discloses the method of claim 10, comprising determining a fault location responsive to the generated correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714; Zang discloses a fault condition of the cable based on the transmitted pulse and on a state of samples of each set of obtained samples for the observed signals a number of sampling times).
With respect to claim 12, Zang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein reconstructing the reflection signal comprises:
determining an energy detection signal responsive to the observed signal (Zang teaches sampling the observed signal and processing it to determine cable condition; see Fig. 7 step 708, sample the observed signal and obtain samples; see Fig. 7, step 714, determine fault condition based on sample signals); and determining the reconstructed reflection signal responsive to the energy detection signal (Zang teaches comparing sampled signals with transmitted pulse responses using threshold comparisons and signal processing logic, see Fig. 7, steps 702, 710 and 712 – comparator operations applied to sampled signals; step 714 determining fault condition based on signal processing of the sampled signals).
With respect to claim 13, Zang discloses the method of claim 12, wherein determining whether the fault is present comprises determining a value of the energy detection signal when a threshold for the energy detection signal is greater than an amplitude of the transmit signal (see Fig. 7, step 702 setting a comparator threshold; step 7 steps 710 and 712 additional threshold comparisons; see Fig. 7, step 714 determining cable fault condition based on processed signal samples).
With respect to claim 14, Zang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein determining whether a fault is present in the cable is at least partially responsive to multiple sets of generated correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 708 sampling observed signal and obtaining multiple samples; steps 702-712 repeated threshold processing sampled signals; step 714 determining cable fault condition based on processed signals).
With respect to claim 17, Zang teaches the method of claim 10, wherein determining whether a fault is present in the cable comprises identifying a maximum peak in the correlation values (Zang teaches sampling and processing observed signals to determine cable fault conditions. See Fig. 7, step 708 – sampling and observed signal and Fig. 7, step 714 determining cable fault condition based on sampled signals).
With respect to claim 18, Zang teaches the method of claim 17, comprising determining a fault type responsive to the maximum peak in the correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714 determining cable fault condition, once a peak corresponding to a reflection is identified, it would have been obvious to determine the type of cable fault from the characteristics of the signal response).
With respect to claim 19, Zang teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the fault type is determined as an open fault responsive to the maximum peak being positive (positive reflections correspond to open circuits which is well known in cable diagnostics and reflection analysis).
With respect to claim 20, Zang teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the fault type is determined as a short fault responsive to the maximum peak being negative (the short fault responsive to the maximum peak being negative, negative reflections correspond to short circuits).
With respect to claim 21, Zang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer (see abstract; Fig. 7, includes processing circuitry that executes signal-processing operations to diagnose cable faults. Such processing circuitry necessarily executes instructions stored in memory to perform the diagnostic operations), cause the computer to: provide a transmit signal to a cable; observe, at least partially responsive to providing the transmit signal, a signal on the cable (Zang teaches transmitting a pulse signal onto a cable; see Fig. 7, step 704 – transmit a pulse signal to a cable);
reconstruct a reflection signal responsive to the observed signal (see Fig. 7, step 708 – sample observed signal and obtain samples);
generate correlation values representing correlation between the reconstructed reflection signal and multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (see Fig. 7, steps 702-714, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that correlating delayed transmit signals with received signals is a conventional signal-processing technique for identifying reflections in cable diagnostics); and determine whether a fault is present in the cable at least partially responsive to the generated
correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714 determining a fault condition of the cable).
With respect to claim 22, Zang discloses a computing apparatus (see Abstract, Fig. 7) comprising:
a processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing
apparatus to (Zang discloses processing circuitry within a network node that processes sampled signals to determine cable fault conditions. Such circuitry necessarily includes a processor executing instructions stored in memory; see abstract; Fig. 7):
provide a transmit signal to a cable (Zang teaches transmitting a pulse signal onto a cable; Fig. 7, step 704);
observe, at least partially responsive to providing the transmit signal, a signal on the
cable (see Fig. 7, step 706; observe a signal received by the transmitter node representative to the transmitted pulse);
reconstruct a reflection signal responsive to the observed signal (see Fig. 7, step 708 – sample the observed signal and obtain samples);
generate correlation values representing correlation between the reconstructed reflection
signal and multiple signals representing the transmit signal as variably delayed (see Fig. 7, steps 702-714; a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that correlating delayed transmit signals with received reflection signals is a conventional signal-processing technique for identifying cable reflections); and determine whether a fault is present in the cable at least partially responsive to the
generated correlation values (see Fig. 7, step 714 determining a fault condition of the cable).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA AKHTER HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eman A Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858