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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/20/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment and Response filed 2/20/26 has been entered and made of record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 2-3 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 101
Applicant argued that
Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological solution that improves Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) systems for cable fault detection. The present application describes obtaining an echo response using TDR, identifying reflections, and then normalizing either the reflection representation or the fault threshold to enable accurate fault detection. This enables automatic fault detection across varying cable conditions and improvement in TDR technology. The claims here improve TDR technology itself by allowing more accurate fault detection through normalization techniques specifically designed for TDR signal processing.
Furthermore, the Examiner's characterization of the method as performable by "mental processes" is factually incorrect. TDR requires specialized hardware to transmit electrical pulses and measure reflections occurring at sub-microsecond timescales, and the human mind is not equipped to transmit or receive these signals. The claims explicitly recite "using time domain reflectometry, TDR" (Claim 1), which one skilled in the art will appreciate is performed using electronic equipment, such as including pulse generators, transmission line interfaces, signal sampling circuitry, and analog-to-digital converters-equipment that operates at speeds far exceeding human cognitive capabilities. Human cognition operates on millisecond timescales, making it physically impossible to mentally perform the nanosecond-precision measurements for TDR.
Even if some claim limitations could somehow even arguably be characterized as abstract when viewed in isolation, which Applicant does not concede, the claims as a whole integrate any such limitations into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. A claim that improves a technology or technical field is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The normalization technique is applied with TDR equipment to overcome a specific technical limitation of cable testing systems, transforming raw measurement data into a form where faults can be accurately detected and localized.
Finally, the claims contain significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. As discussed below, claims 1 is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the references as applied, and accordingly, provides an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, which Applicant respectfully submits each stand on their own, claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully submits that similar reasoning applies to claims 19 and 20. Claims 2-18, which depend from claim 1, are patent eligible at least due to such dependence. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, the examiner disagrees with the above argument because the invention direct to a method of detecting fault along the transmission cable by using a TDR which is a well-known equipment to detect fault of the cable. There is no technology improvement to the TDR or the structure of the cable since there are no specific modification of the electrical component, circuit to the TDR which improves the performance of the TDR. Furthermore, there is no improvement to the cable.
The Examiner maintains the rejection.
The Rejection of Claims Under 112
Claims 2 and 3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, for asserted improper dependent form.
Examiner withdraws the rejection.
The Rejection of Claims Under 102
Claims 1-4, 9-12 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. G 102(a) over Wyar (U.S. 2003/0020898).
Claims 1-4 and 9-12
Claim 1 recites in part "at least one of: (a) obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections and a fault threshold; or (b) obtaining a normalised representation of the fault threshold and determining a fault condition based on the representation ofthe plurality ofreflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold." (Emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action asserts "abnormalities data bank interpreted as fault threshold." (Office Action at p. 14). No explanation or reasoning is provided as to how or why the "abnormalities data bank" of Wyar is equivalent to the "fault threshold" of claim 1. (Office Action at p. 15). Applicant respectfully submits that the "abnormalities data bank" of Wyar is not equivalent to the "fault threshold" of claim 1.
Instead, Wyar makes clear that the "abnormalities data bank" includes a number of fault
signatures used for pattern matching and correlation. (See Wyar at [0094] and [0098]). For example, Wyar discusses that "The characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line are estimated indirectly by comparing the reflected trace with a library of already known abnormalities." (Wyar at [0098]).
For at least the above reasons, claim 1 is not anticipated by Wyar. Claims 2-3 and 9-12, which depend from claim 1, are not anticipated by virtue of their dependence. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the @ 102 rejection are respectfully requested.
Claim 19 includes similar recitations to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, and similar reasoning is believed to apply. Therefore, claim 19 is not anticipated by Wyar. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the @ 102 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, the examiner disagrees with the above argument because Wyar paragraph 0094 discloses “The measurements and calculations as discussed below employ unique algorithms to level the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank for the most likely impairments. In particular, the candidates with the largest area and those that were found in the greatest number of traces. Those abnormalities not meeting that criteria are eliminated as being minor perturbations that should not be counted as true impairments”.
Since there is no specific definition of threshold in the claims, the “abnormalities data bank” or the “library of already known abnormalities” would qualifies for the threshold.
The Rejection of Claims Under 103
Claims 3 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wyar (U.S. 2003/0020898) in view of Mazur Richard A (U.S. 6237739).
In rejecting claims 3 and 20, the Office Action concedes that Wyar does not disclose normalizing a fault threshold, and instead relies on Mazur to bridge this substantial gap. (Office Action at p. 25, 26). The Office Action does not appear to cite to any specific portion of Mazur, but instead asserts that "Mazur discloses the concept of measured data converted to the normalized data in order to compared with the normalized threshold data." (Office Action at p. 25, 26). Accordingly, the rejection is deficient for failing to point out the specific portions of Mazur that are relied upon. (MPEP 2142).
Additionally, Mazur appears to be directed to an "Intelligent documents handling system," and it is entirely unclear why one of skill in the art would even find Mazur relevant. (Mazur at Title). Accordingly, appropriate clarification is respectfully requested.
Therefore, claim 3 is not obvious by virtue of its dependence on claim 1 and claim 20 is not obvious for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, the examiner disagrees with the above argument because the examiner relied on the concept of comparison of test data to a threshold to determine the abnormality. Furthermore, Mazur discloses determine in such comparison whether the test data sufficiently matches any item of master information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
A method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line, the method comprising:
obtaining an echo response of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR;
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response;
generating a representation of the plurality of reflections;
and
at least one of:
(a) obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections;
(b) obtaining a normalised representation of the fault threshold and determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold.
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features (claims 14-18) are “additional elements
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-18 recite a method and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claims 1-18 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
In claim 1, the recited functions:
obtaining an echo response of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (this is a collection of information);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response (this is an evaluation/analyzing of information which can be performed as mental processes); and
generating a representation of the plurality of reflections;
and
at least one of:
(a) obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (this is a mathematic manipulating step) and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes);
(b) obtaining a normalised representation of the fault threshold (this mathematic manipulating step) and determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 2, the method according to claim 1, comprising (a) obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (this is a mathematic manipulating step), and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections and the fault threshold (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 3, the method according to claim 1, except comprising (b) obtaining a normalised representation of the fault threshold (this is a mathematic manipulating step), and wherein determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 4, the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: validating the plurality of reflections, wherein validating the plurality of reflections comprises determining whether a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid, such that it is not representative of a fault condition (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 5, the method according to claim 4, comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 6, method according to claim 4, comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection has a width that is less, in samples, than half a width of a reflection caused by a fault occurring at zero distance from an end of the cable or transmission line (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 7, the method according to claim 4, comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent and of an opposite polarity to a preceding reflection and has a smaller average starting differential than the preceding reflections ending differential (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 8, the method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises: discarding invalid peaks from the obtained echo response and obtaining the representation of the plurality of reflections based on any remaining reflections of the identified plurality of reflections (mental processes).
Regarding to claim 9, the method according to claim 1, wherein the representation of the plurality of reflections comprises either: a first waveform which comprises the plurality of reflections; or a list comprising the plurality of reflections and respective sample numbers of a plurality of the reflections (data collection).
Regarding to claim 10, the method according to claim 2, wherein determining a fault condition comprises determining whether a reflection in the normalised representation is above the threshold (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 11, the method according to claim 3, wherein determining a fault condition comprises determining whether a reflection in the representation of the plurality of reflections is above the normalised representation of threshold (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 12, the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a location of the fault condition based on a sample number of the reflection for which the fault condition is determined (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 13, the method according claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: fitting a polynomial function to a reflection of the echo response and determining a location of the reflection based on a maximum value of the polynomial function and a sample number or interpolated sample number at which this maximum value occurs (judgement and mathematic).
Regarding to claim 14, the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining a normalised representation comprises normalising relative to an insertion loss of the cable (parameter obtaining and evaluating).
Regarding to claim 17, “wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a second echo response of the cable or transmission line, wherein the second echo response is taken from a different location than the echo response (data collection step);
identifying a second plurality of reflections in the second echo response; validating the plurality of reflections in the echo response, wherein validating the plurality of reflections comprises comparing locations of a plurality of peaks with locations of the second plurality of peaks” (this is an evaluation/analyzing of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Regarding to claim 18, the method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
identifying a first reflection in the plurality of reflections (this is an evaluation/analyzing of information which can be performed as mental processes);
identifying a second reflection in the second plurality of reflections (this is an evaluation/analyzing of information which can be performed as mental processes);
comparing the first reflection and the second reflection to determine whether the first reflection is a valid reflection (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes).
Claims 2-14 and 17-18 are dependent of claim 1, do not appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted step or a device for implementing the highlighted step appear to be a data processing system.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims direct toward the results of the device under test.
Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements:
Claim 14 recites “insertion loss” which is another type of well-known in parameter in TDR and is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it is generically characterized and are well-understood/conventional in the relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record as indicated in Ardestani et al. (US 20150163349).
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Similarly, claims 19 and 20 are 101 rejected as same as claim 1 above because they are directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wyar (US 20030020898 hereinafter Wyar).
Regarding to claim 1, Wyar discloses a method of detecting a fault along a cable or transmission line, the method comprising:
obtaining an echo response of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (paragraph 72 and fig. 9 discloses TDR system to detect faults of cable under test);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response (paragraph 72 discloses pulse generator 1 which transmits a trace of energy onto the cable and receiving any reflected traces at a base location and paragraph 0094 discloses reflected traces (plurality));
generating a representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 72 discloses microprocessor 9 and displayed for user interpretation … trace is created on a display screen showing the transmitted and reflected traces); and
at least one of:
(a) obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (figs. 5-7 and 10-19 show graphical representation of the results of the Normalization) and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 0022 discloses the normalization steps will then generate graphical representation indicative of the characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line, wherein the abnormalities may be individually graphically represented in a predetermined observation range. The normalization steps are used to amplify the abnormalities in conjunction with the time interval of the TDR traces and at least one gain coefficient factor) and a fault threshold (paragraph 0094 discloses measurements and calculations as discussed below employ unique algorithms to level the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank and paragraph 0098 discloses comparing the reflected trace with a library of already known abnormalities (abnormalities data bank and reflected trace with a library interpreted as fault threshold)); or
(b) obtaining a normalised representation of the fault threshold and determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold.
Regarding to claim 2, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising (a) obtaining the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections, and determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 0022 discloses the normalization steps will then generate graphical representation indicative of the characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line, wherein the abnormalities may be individually graphically represented in a predetermined observation range. The normalization steps are used to amplify the abnormalities in conjunction with the time interval of the TDR traces and at least one gain coefficient factor) and the fault threshold (paragraph 0094 discloses measurements and calculations as discussed below employ unique algorithms to level the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank (abnormalities data bank interpreted as fault threshold)).
Regarding to claim 4, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: validating the plurality of reflections, wherein validating the plurality of reflections comprises determining whether a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid, such that it is not representative of a fault condition (paragraph 0094 discloses the return trace waveforms will reveal many of the characteristics of the line being tested … the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank for the most likely impairments).
Regarding to claim 9, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the representation of the plurality of reflections comprises either: a first waveform which comprises the plurality of reflections (paragraph 0092 discloses controller circuit 213 will convert the characteristic data results generated by the processor 213a and display them on the display 215 and paragraph 0094 discloses return trace waveforms will reveal many of the characteristics of the line being tested); or a list comprising the plurality of reflections and respective sample numbers of a plurality of the reflections.
Regarding to claim 10, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein determining a fault condition comprises determining whether a reflection in the normalised representation is above the threshold (as noted in claim 1, examiner do not consider “threshold” limitation. Furthermore, paragraph 0094 discloses the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank (abnormalities data bank is a threshold) and by observe the return signal, the characteristics of cable under test can be determined. The normal cable without fault (break short open) would not show any change in amplitude, thus if there is a change in amplitude may indicate a cable failure. Therefore, it would be necessitated to compare the failure above the threshold to validate a real failure).
Regarding to claim 11, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein determining a fault condition comprises determining whether a reflection in the representation of the plurality of reflections is above the normalised representation of threshold (paragraph 0094 discloses the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank (abnormalities data bank is a threshold) and by observe the return signal, the characteristics of cable under test can be determined. The normal cable without fault (break short open) would not show any change in amplitude, thus if there is a change in amplitude may indicate a cable failure. Therefore, it would be necessitated to compare the failure above the threshold to validate a real failure).
Regarding to claim 12, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a location of the fault condition based on a sample number of the reflection for which the fault condition is determined (paragraph 0023 discloses calculating means for calculating the distance from the base location to abnormality causing the reflected pulse; paragraph 71 discloses presence of abnormalities is generally represented by the occurrence of changes in the slope where each bump on the plot indicates some type of abnormality in a specific location of the line).
Regarding to claim 19, Wyar discloses a method of detecting a fault along a cable or transmission line (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining an echo response of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (paragraph 72 and fig. 9 discloses TDR system to detect faults of cable under test);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response (paragraph 72 discloses pulse generator 1 which transmits a trace of energy onto the cable and receiving any reflected traces at a base location and paragraph 0094 discloses reflected traces (plurality));
generating a representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 72 discloses microprocessor 9 and displayed for user interpretation … trace is created on a display screen showing the transmitted and reflected traces);
obtaining a normalised representation of the representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 0022 discloses the normalization steps will then generate graphical representation indicative of the characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line, wherein the abnormalities may be individually graphically represented in a predetermined observation range. The normalization steps are used to amplify the abnormalities in conjunction with the time interval of the TDR traces and at least one gain coefficient factor); and
determining a fault condition based on the normalised representation of the plurality of reflections and a fault threshold (paragraph 94 discloses measurements and calculations as discussed below employ unique algorithms to level the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank for the most likely impairments).
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyar as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sallem (US 20180143239 hereinafter Sallem).
Regarding to claim 5, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 4, except comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection.
Paragraph 0094 discloses the return trace waveforms will reveal many of the characteristics of the line being tested. However, Wyar does not disclose determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection (as shown in fig. 5 of the instant application).
Figs. 3-4 of Sallem show the reflectogram have the same characteristic as of fig. 5 of the instant application therefore, Sallen has the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Sallen into Wyar in order to make low-amplitude reflections stand out.
Regarding to claim 7, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 4, except comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent and of an opposite polarity to a preceding reflection and has a smaller average starting differential than the preceding reflections ending differential.
Paragraph 0094 discloses the return trace waveforms will reveal many of the characteristics of the line being tested. However, Wyar does not disclose determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection (as shown in fig. 5 of the instant application).
Figs. 3-4 of Sallen show the reflectogram have the same characteristic as of fig. 5 of the instant application therefore, Sallen has the reflection is adjacent to a preceding reflection and is of an opposite polarity to the preceding reflection, wherein the reflection is adjacent to the preceding reflection if a sample of the preceding reflection is at a later time than a sample of the reflection.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Sallen into Wyar in order to make low-amplitude reflections stand out.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyar.
Regarding to claim 6, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 4, except comprising determining a reflection of the plurality of reflections is invalid if the reflection has a width that is less, in samples, than half a width of a reflection caused by a fault occurring at zero distance from an end of the cable or transmission line.
Paragraph 0094 discloses the return trace waveforms will reveal many of the characteristics of the line being tested … the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank for the most likely impairments. However, to have the reflection has a width that is less, in samples, than half a width of a reflection caused by a fault occurring at zero distance from an end of the cable or transmission line is the property of the TDR system.
Regarding to claim 8, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 4, except wherein the method further comprises: discarding invalid peaks from the obtained echo response and obtaining the representation of the plurality of reflections based on any remaining reflections of the identified plurality of reflections.
However, to discard the invalid peaks from the obtained echo response is just a normal practice. Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to discard the invalid data as a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyar as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bechhoefer et al. (US 20040230385 hereinafter Bechhoefer).
Regarding to claim 13, Wyar discloses the method according claim 1, except wherein the method further comprises: fitting a polynomial function to a reflection of the echo response and determining a location of the reflection based on a maximum value of the polynomial function and a sample number or interpolated sample number at which this maximum value occurs.
Bechhoefer discloses diagnostics system to detect events, such as defects, that may occur within a wire or cable under test utilize Time Domain Reflectometry. Fig. 9B shows the method included a polynomial fitting process.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Bechhoefer into Wyar in order to remove unwanted reflective components due to inverse scattering producing a first adjusted signal, and performing attenuation compensation on the first adjusted signal.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyar as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ardestani et al. (US 20150163349 hereinafter Ardestani).
Regarding to claim 14, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining a normalised representation comprises normalising relative to an insertion loss of the cable (paragraph 0022 discloses the normalization steps will then generate graphical representation indicative of the characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line).
Ardestani discloses TDR echo response included measures of line insertion loss and line attenuation, and other measures.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Ardestani into Wyar as a matter of intended use.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyar, and further in view of Mazur et al. (US 6237739 hereinafter Mazur).
Regarding to claim 20, Wyar discloses a method of detecting a fault along a cable or transmission line (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining an echo response of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (paragraph 72 and fig. 9 discloses TDR system to detect faults of cable under test);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response (paragraph 72 discloses pulse generator 1 which transmits a trace of energy onto the cable and receiving any reflected traces at a base location and paragraph 0094 discloses reflected traces (plurality));
generating a representation of the plurality of reflections (paragraph 72 discloses microprocessor 9 and displayed for user interpretation … trace is created on a display screen showing the transmitted and reflected traces);
obtaining a normalised representation of a fault threshold (paragraph 0022 discloses the normalization steps will then generate graphical representation indicative of the characteristics of the abnormalities of the copper pair line, wherein the abnormalities may be individually graphically represented in a predetermined observation range. The normalization steps are used to amplify the abnormalities in conjunction with the time interval of the TDR traces and at least one gain coefficient factor and paragraph 94 discloses compared with an abnormalities data bank. The normalized data compared with data bank indicates that the data bank are normalized data); and
determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the (paragraph 94 discloses measurements and calculations as discussed below employ unique algorithms to level the amplitude of reflected traces within a specific range to show abnormalities to be compared with an abnormalities data bank for the most likely impairments).
However, Wyar does not discloses to normalize the fault threshold.
Mazur discloses the concept of measured data converted to the normalized data in order to compared with the normalized threshold data.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the teaching of Mazur into Wyar in order to obtain accurate test results.
In claim 1, Examiner, does not consider limitation “(b) obtaining the normalised representation of the fault threshold and determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold”, thus claim 3 does not further limit claim 1.
However, claim 3 can be rejected as below:
Regarding to claim 3, Wyar discloses the method according to claim 1, except comprising (b) obtaining the normalised representation of the fault threshold, and wherein determining a fault condition based on the representation of the plurality of reflections and the normalised representation of the fault threshold.
Wyar discloses to normalize the measured data and compare the measured data to abnormalities data bank (paragraph 0094 and 98).
However, Wyar does not discloses to normalize the fault threshold.
Mazur discloses the concept of measured data converted to the normalized data in order to compared with the normalized threshold data.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the teaching of Mazur into Wyar in order to obtain accurate test results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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 and overcome the 101, 112 rejections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 15, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein obtaining the normalised representation comprises normalising the reflections using a single-point normalisation centred at a frequency or average frequency where power of a transmitted signal is centred” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 16, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the normalisation is a function β.sup.(n-n.sup.o.sup.), wherein β is an insertion loss of the cable per sample, n is a sample number corresponding to the sample being normalised and n.sub.0 is a sample number of a first reflection in a situation whereby no cable is connected” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 17, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a second echo response of the cable or transmission line, wherein the second echo response is taken from a different location than the echo response; identifying a second plurality of reflections in the second echo response; validating the plurality of reflections in the echo response, wherein validating the plurality of reflections comprises comparing locations of a plurality of peaks with locations of the second plurality of peaks” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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 Alkafawi can be reached at 5712724448. 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.
/SON T LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858