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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “related the local tension measurement” should be --related to the local tension measurement-- to correct a typo.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, “the local tension measuring device” should be --the tension measuring device-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “a local tension H” in line 5 and “static H and dynamic ΔH local tension components of the suspended span over a time range” in lines 10-11. The term H is used inconsistently that causes uncertainty as to whether the local tension H is the static local tension component H. For examination purpose, “a local tension H” and “the local tension H” in line 5 is assumed to be --“a local tension-- and --the local tension-- respectively.
Further regarding claim 1, it recites “the data processing unit” in line 15. It is unclear whether it is the on-board data processing unit or the remotely connected data processing unit. For examination purpose, “the data processing unit” in line 15 is assumed to be --the on-board or remotely connected data processing unit--.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “the data processing unit” in line 16. It is unclear whether it is the on-board data processing unit or the remotely connected data processing unit. For examination purpose, “the data processing unit” in line 16 is assumed to be --the on-board or remotely connected data processing unit--.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s). In claim 6, line 7, “the local tension H” is assumed to be --the local tension-- for examination purpose.
Notes
Claim 1 is eligible under 35 USC 101, although it recites an abstract idea including an algorithm of estimating a severity of vibration. It recites additional elements including using an autonomous device with a tension measuring device mounted thereon and fixed to the suspended cable span and an on-board or remotely connected data processing unit and measuring static H and dynamic ΔH local tension components of the suspended span over a time range. The additional elements make the claim a practical application in monitoring fatigue lifetime or damage of a suspended electrical cable span of overhead power lines using a mounted measuring device.
Claims 1 and 7 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 7 (as the representative): “wherein the system is configured to: measure static H and dynamic ΔH local tension components of the suspended span over a time range as a local tension measurement, with the tension measuring device, so as to obtain a time-dependent tension measurement signal, the antinode amplitude of vibration being related the local tension measurement, and performing a frequency or time-frequency analysis of the time-dependent tension measurement signal, with the data processing unit, wherein the severity of vibration is obtained from the local tension components of the formula:
1
π
∆
H
H
E
S
m
=
A
f
,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Lilien et al. (US 8184015 B2; cited in IDS) teaches an autonomous device for real-time monitoring of overhead power lines, involving an oscillation sensor for detecting mechanical oscillations of the power line cable and monitoring sag of the power lines.
BJERKAN et al. (“MEASUREMENTS ON AEOLIAN VIBRATIONS ON A 3 KM FJORD CROSSING WITH FIBRE-OPTIC BRAGG GRATING SENSORS” CIGRE 2004, B2-314; cited in IDS) and BJERKAN (“Application of fiber-optic Bragg grating sensors in monitoring environmental loads of overhead power transmission lines” Applied Optics Vol. 39, No. 4, 554-560, Feb. 2000; cited in IDS) teaches a fiber optic sensor for estimating vibration of overhead lines.
Lilien et al. (US 20140163884 A1; cited in IDS) teaches a method and system for the determination of parameters related to the speed of wind that blows near an overhead electrical power line, by using the combination of mechanical vibrations and movements/positions in two or three dimensions through sensors in direct link with the power line conductor.
Dodson (US 6343515 B1; cited in IDS) teaches a tension measuring device to perform a measure of tension in any location along a wire.
McNeill et al. (US 8725429 B2; cited in IDS) teaches a method of fatigue monitoring of a riser cable based on vibration measurements at a few locations of the cable.
WANG et al. (CN 105553101 A) teaches a method of power transmission line detection, involving calculating breeze vibration level and fatigue life based on maximum stress condition of the transmission line, wind direction measurement data, and temperature and humidity measurement data.
Hovhanessian et al. (US 20140190268 A1) teaches a method for determining the fatigue capital of a cable, involving measuring normal tensile stress and the bending stress in the cable; counting the number of stress cycles, depending on the amplitude of the stress, from the measured compound stresses; and assessing the fatigue capital of the cable by comparing the count with a pre-set Wohler curve for the cable.
None of the closest prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the above indicated features as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857