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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 101
Applicant argued that
STEP 2A PRONG ONE - ABSTRACT IDEA
The Office Action characterizes the claimed steps as mental processes on the basis that they involve collection, evaluation, and judgment of information. (Office Action, pp. 3-4). This characterization is incorrect with respect to at least the step of obtaining an echo response using time domain reflectometry. Obtaining a TDR echo response requires physically transmitting an electrical signal into a cable or transmission line and receiving the resulting reflected voltage waveform. This is not a process that can be performed in the human mind. A human cannot mentally transmit a TDR pulse into a cable and receive a reflected voltage waveform. The Office Action has conflated the general concept of collecting information with the specific physical act of performing a TDR measurement, which necessarily requires physical hardware and produces a physical electrical signal. Where a claim recites steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the mental processes characterization is inappropriate.
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.
The TDR used to obtain the data which is a collection of data step having no particularized functional relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO - PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Even if the claims were somehow even arguably considered to recite an abstract idea, which applicant does not concede, the claimed methods are integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to a specific technical method of detecting and locating shield-faults in physical cables or transmission lines using time domain reflectometry. The method produces a concrete and specific technical result in the form of a confirmed presence and precise location of a shield-fault in a physical cable, which directly enables a physical remedial action such as repair or replacement of a specific portion of the cable. This is not an abstract result. Furthermore, the specification discloses that the claimed method is integrated into a transceiver such as a 1OBASE-T1L Ethernet physical layer device, enabling reusing certain hardware circuitry to enable background shield-fault detection without interrupting normal data transmission. (Application as filed at p. 4). This represents a specific technical implementation tied to a particular class of communication hardware, constituting integration into a practical application.
the examiner disagrees with the above argument because the function of TDR is to locate and display the position of the abnormality of the cable under test whereas the user determines the fault by observe the display and compare with a known good waveform which are mental and judgment steps.
STEP 2B - SIGNIFICANTLYMORE
The Office Action's Step 2B analysis concludes that the open-circuit, short-circuit, and terminated conditions are well-understood and conventional as evidenced by Pickerd. (Office Action, p. 5). This analysis improperly conflates the individual components alone with the question of whether the claimed combination as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The specific combination of obtaining echo responses under different termination conditions and analyzing the geometric relationships between reflection polarities and locations to identify a shield- fault signature is not shown to be discussed by Pickerd, which merely uses those termination conditions exclusively for frequency-domain calibration purposes entirely unrelated to shield-fault detection. The claimed methods therefore amount to significantly more than any abstract idea.
To perform, open short and load are well-known for calibration the TDR before measurements in order to obtain accurate information.
The Examiner maintains the rejection.
The Rejection of Claims Under 102
Claims 1 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Robson (U.S. 5233986).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, "determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response." (Emphasis added).
Robson does not appear to discuss determining a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections within an echo response, as recited in claim 1. The sole passage cited by the Office Action at page 10 for this recitation is column 17, lines 16-17 of Robson. (Office Action at p. 10). Column 17, lines 16-17 of Robson state that "the TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal." This is a temporal comparison of an entire current waveform against a previously stored baseline waveform for the purpose of detecting whether any change has occurred over time in a medical electrode. It is not a comparison of the locations of individual reflections within an echo response.
For example, Robson appears to be entirely silent with respect to the "location of reflections," let alone "comparing locations of reflections," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 102 rejection are respectfully requested.
Examiner disagrees with the above argument, column lines 16-17 discloses “TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal for the ECG connectors, as described above. If the comparison indicates that a break or short in a ECG electrode has occurred, a graphical display showing the location of the break and an audible alarm are generated. It will also be appreciated that the above procedure can also be employed for the defibrillator output and pacing outputs, so the integrity of the entire system may be tested”. Claim 6 further discloses “means for comparing a TDR output signal to a stored reference TDR signal, means for indicating whether the TDR output signal varies from the stored reference TDR signal by a predefined threshold.
Therefore, Robson met the claimed limitations.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites, in part, "obtaining a terminated echo response ... determining a presence of a shield-fault, wherein a shield-fault is determined if: a negative polarity reflection is present at a first distance in the terminated echo response, the first distance equal to a length of the cable or transmission line; a positive polarity reflection is present at a second distance in the terminated echo response, the second distance equal to twice the cable length." (Emphasis added).
Robson does not show determining a shield-fault based on the presence of a negative polarity reflection at a distance equal to the cable length and a positive polarity reflection at a distance equal to twice the cable length in a terminated echo response, as recited in claim 20.
In rejecting the recitation "obtaining a terminated echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR," the Office Action cites to column 6, lines 52-54 of Robson, (Office Action, pp. 10-11.), which state "a representative TDR pulse may comprise a 300 mV amplitude into a 50 ohm load, with a 25 microsecond pulse duration." (Robson, col. 6, lns. 52-54). This passage describes the amplitude and duration characteristics of the TDR incident output pulse. It says nothing whatsoever about a terminated echo response, about reflections at specific distances, or about reflection polarity. The cited passage is directed to the characteristics of the outgoing pulse, not to any reflected signal or its analysis.
Furthermore, the Office Action does not cite to any portion of Robson for the entirety of the recitations "determining a presence of a shield-fault, wherein a shield-fault is determined if: a negative polarity reflection is present at a first distance in the terminated echo response, the first distance equal to a length of the cable or transmission line; a positive polarity reflection is present at a second distance in the terminated echo response, the second distance equal to twice the cable length." (Office Action at pp. 10-11). Instead, the Office Action states "(this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable. Furthermore, the above limitations are the property of the TDR and the attach TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review shows different types of faults displayed on the scope.)." (Office Action at p. 11). However, the "TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review" (hereinafter TDR Tutorial) appears to be entirely silent with respect to how to perform TDR, and instead just shows a number of example TDR waveforms. Accordingly, it is unclear to Applicant what the Office Action is using TDR Tutorial for. Additionally, as discussed above, Robson contains no disclosure of analyzing reflection polarity at specific distances relative to cable length as a shield-fault detection methodology. Robson's system is directed to comparing overall TDR waveforms of medical electrodes against stored baselines. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 102 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, examiner disagrees with the arguments because the claim states the property of the TDR measurement.
The Rejection of Claims Under 103
Claims 2-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robson in view of Pickerd (U.S. 2004/0027138) in view of "TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review".
Applicant respectfully submits that neither Pickerd nor TDR Tutorial appear to remedy the deficiencies of Robson discussed above. For example, neither Pickerd nor TDR Tutorial appear to discuss ""determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not obvious over the references as applied and claims 2-18 are not obvious by virtue of their dependence. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection are respectfully requested.
Additionally, the Office Action's treatment of claims 4, 8, and 18 is procedurally and substantively deficient. With respect to claims 4 and 8, the Office Action expressly states "this claim directs toward open-circuit echo response and short-circuit echo response therefore examiner does not consider the claim," while simultaneously listing those claims as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Office Action at pp. 15-16, 17-18). A rejection must address every recitation of every pending claim, and declining to consider specific recitations while maintaining a rejection is not a proper basis for rejection.
With respect to claim 18, the Office Action's entire analysis consists of the conclusory statement that "this is the property of the TDR," with no mapping of the specific fifth and sixth reflection recitations of claim 18 to any discussion in either Robson or Pickerd. (Office Action, pp. 22-23). The fifth and sixth reflection test of claim 18 is a specific logical operation using the mathematical relationship between dl and d2 to exclude false positives. It is plainly not a general property of TDR and is not discussed or suggested by either applied reference. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Office Action provide a complete and proper analysis of claims 4, 8, and 18 addressing each and every recitation of those claims.
However, examiner disagrees with the arguments because the claims state the property of the TDR measurement.
Claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robson in view of Pickerd.
Claim 19 recites, in part, "determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections in the open-circuit, terminated and, short-circuit echo responses." (Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that neither Robson nor Pickerd, alone or in combination, discuss or even suggest determining a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections across open-circuit, terminated, and short-circuit echo responses, as recited in claim 19. The Office Action maps the terminated echo response and comparison step to Robson, and maps the open- circuit and short-circuit echo response recitations and the identification of reflections to Pickerd. (Office Action, pp. 23-25). With respect to Robson, the Office Action again relies on col. 17, lines 16-17 for the comparison step. (Office Action, p. 23). As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, that passage discloses a temporal comparison of an entire current TDR waveform against a previously stored baseline waveform for detecting changes in a medical electrode over time. (Robson, col. 17, lines 14-20). This is categorically different from comparing respective locations of reflections across three simultaneously or sequentially obtained echo responses under different termination conditions to identify a shield-fault signature. Furthermore, the Office Action maps the terminated echo response to col. 6, lines 52-54 of Robson. (Office Action, p. 23). As discussed with respect to claim 20 above, that passage describes the amplitude and duration of the TDR incident output pulse and says nothing about deliberately terminating a cable at a second end with a matched impedance load for the purpose of obtaining a terminated echo response as a diagnostic step. (Robson, col. 6, lines 52-54). Robson does not discuss either a terminated echo response or a reflection location, let alone discussing a comparison of reflection locations across multiple termination conditions.
With respect to Pickerd, the three termination conditions are calibration standards used to derive mathematical error correction coefficients for frequency-domain return loss measurements. (Pickerd, para. [0066]; see also Pickerd, paras. [0017], [0067]-[0069]). Specifically, Pickerd uses the reflection coefficients measured under the three conditions to solve for error correction terms a, b, and c in a two-port error correction model. (Pickerd, paras. [0068]-[0070]). This is a frequency- domain mathematical calibration operation entirely unrelated to identifying individual time-domain reflections at specific locations and comparing those locations across termination conditions to detect a shield-fault. The Office Action's attribution of "identifying a plurality of reflections in the open-circuit echo response, the terminated echo response, and the short-circuit echo response" to paragraph [0066] of Pickerd is not supported by what that paragraph actually discusses. Paragraph [0066] of Pickerd describes determining reflection coefficient magnitude and phase for calibration purposes, not identifying individual discrete reflections at specific distances in a time-domain echo response.
With respect to the motivation to combine, the Office Action states the combination is
motivated by a desire "to offset signal acquisition errors within measurements made during the DUT load condition" and "to terminate at the second end of the cable under test with a matching impedance to provide accurate measurement." (Office Action, p. 25). This motivation is drawn entirely from Pickerd's own stated purpose of measurement calibration and error correction. (Pickerd, para. [0006]). It does not provide a rational basis for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine a medical electrode TDR integrity testing system (Robson) with a frequency- domain return loss calibration system (Pickerd) in a manner that yields a method of detecting shield- faults by comparing reflection locations across three termination conditions. A proper motivation to combine must explain why the combination would produce the claimed invention, not merely restate the purpose of one of the references.
Finally, the recitation "determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections in the open-circuit, terminated, and short-circuit echo responses," is not disclosed or suggested by either Robson or Pickerd individually or by their combination. (Office Action, pp. 23-25). Neither reference discloses using the specific locational relationships between reflections across different termination conditions as a diagnostic signature for a shield-fault. The combination of a gross waveform comparison system (Robson) with a frequency-domain calibration system (Pickerd) does not yield, teach, or suggest the specific reflection location comparison methodology recited in claim 19. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, examiner disagrees with the arguments because paragraph 0006 of Pickerd discloses differential test waveform to a load comprising at least one of a device under test (DUT), a short circuit, an open circuit and a balanced load; and a signal acquisition device, adapted to differentially measure the test waveform during each of the load conditions. Robson discloses the TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal. Therefore, these references teach the limitations as claimed.
Claim 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robson in view of Pickerd in view of Cahill (U.S. 2023/0152183).
Applicant respectfully submits that Cahill does not appear to remedy the deficiencies of Robson and Pickerd discussed above. For example, Cahill does not appear to discuss "determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is not obvious over the references as applied and claim 13 is not obvious by virtue of its dependence. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection are respectfully requested.
However, Examiner disagrees with the above argument because the fiber cable 20 connect between two OTDRs 10A and 10B and each OTDR perform measurement not at the same time (paragraph 0028). Therefore, by incorporate Cahill into Robson in view of Pickerd would teach the limitation as claimed.
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 at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR;
identifying a plurality of reflections in the at least one echo response; and
determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response.
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features (claims 2-18) 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 at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (this is a collection of information which can be performed as mental processes);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the at least one echo response (this is an evaluation/analyzing of information which can be performed as mental processes); and
determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response (this is a judgment, opinion of information which can be performed as mental processes)
The type of high-level information collecting and analyzing data recited in these elements has been found by the Federal Circuit to constitute patent ineligible matter (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a
claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind).
Claims 2-18 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:
Open circuit, short circuit and terminate at the second end of the cable/transmission line are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically characterized and are well-understood/conventional in the relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record as indicated in Pickerd et al. (US 20040027138).
Claims 2-18 further recite different signature of echo signals which are the properties of the TDR and describes by TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review.
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 shown in fig 1 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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Robson (US 5233986, hereinafter Robson).
Regarding to claim 1, Robson discloses a method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses Time domain reflectometers can locate shorts, opens, defects in the shield of the cable, foreign substances in the cable, kinks, and more), the method comprising:
obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (col. 6 lines 14-16 discloses monitors the resulting reflected voltage on the electrode over a period of time);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the at least one echo response (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses time domain reflectometers send electrical pulses down the cable and detect any reflections may by any discontinuities in the cable and monitor the reflected signal); and
determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response (col. 17 lines 16-17 discloses the TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal).
Regarding to claim 20, Robson discloses a method for detecting a shield-fault at an end of a cable or transmission line (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses Time domain reflectometers can locate shorts, opens, defects in the shield of the cable, foreign substances in the cable, kinks, and more), the method comprising:
obtaining a terminated echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (col. 6 lines 52-54 discloses representative TDR pulse may comprise a 300 mV amplitude into a 50 ohm load);
identifying a plurality of reflections in the echo response (col. 6 lines 14-16 discloses monitors the resulting reflected voltage on the electrode over a period of time);
determining a presence of a shield-fault, wherein a shield-fault is determined if:
a negative polarity reflection is present at a first distance in the terminated echo response, the first distance equal to a length of the cable or transmission line;
a positive polarity reflection is present at a second distance in the terminated echo response, the second distance equal to twice the cable length (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable. Furthermore, the above limitations are the property of the TDR and the attach TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review shows different types of faults displayed on the scope.).
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) 2-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pickerd et al. (US 20040027138 hereinafter Pickerd).
Regarding to claim 2, Robson discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 1;
wherein identifying a plurality of reflections in the at least one echo response comprises:
identifying a plurality of reflections (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses time domain reflectometers send electrical pulses down the cable and detect any reflections may by any discontinuities in the cable and monitor the reflected signal); and
wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response comprises:
determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses Time domain reflectometers can locate shorts, opens, defects in the shield of the cable, foreign substances in the cable, kinks, and more and col. 17 lines 16-17 discloses the TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal).
However, Robson does not disclose
wherein obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR, comprises obtaining at least one of:
a terminated echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR whilst the cable or transmission line is terminated at the second end; or
wherein identifying a plurality of reflections in the at least one echo response comprises:
identifying a plurality of reflections in at least one of the open-circuit echo response, the terminated echo response and the short-circuit echo response; and
wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response comprises:
determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections in the at least one of the open-circuit, the terminated and the short-circuit echo responses.
Pickerd discloses a system, apparatus and method for performing differential return loss measurements wherein obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR (paragraph 0003 discloses time division reflectometry (TDR) oscilloscopes), comprises obtaining at least one of:
a terminated echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR whilst the cable or transmission line is terminated at the second end (fig. 2 and paragraphs 66 discloses and shows the system include a termination fixture 50 connected at the end of the cable with the termination as short circuit, open circuit or a load impedance); or
Pickerd discloses open circuit, short circuit and terminated at the end of the cable, however. Examiner only consider the transmission line terminated at the second end.
Therefore, by to incorporate Pickerd into Robson would able to
identifying a plurality of reflections in at least one of
wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing locations of reflections in the at least one echo response comprises:
determining the presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections in the at least one of the open-circuit, the terminated and the short-circuit echo responses.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Pickerd into Robson in order to offset signal acquisition errors within measurements made during the DUT load condition. Furthermore, to terminate at the second end of the cable under test with a matching impedance would provide accurate measurement.
Regarding to claim 3, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 2, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises:
determining the presence of a first reflection with a negative polarity in the terminated echo response at a first distance along the cable or transmission line, wherein if there is no first reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable).
Regarding to claim 4, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 3,
wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises determining the presence of a second reflection having at least one of:
a positive or negative polarity in the open-circuit echo response at the first distance along the cable or transmission line, with a different amplitude than the first reflection; or
a negative polarity in the short-circuit echo response at the first distance, with a larger absolute amplitude than the first reflection, and being the last reflection found in the short-circuit echo response, wherein if there is no second reflection, no shield fault is detected.
This claim directs toward open-circuit echo response and short-circuit echo response therefore examiner do not consider the claim.
Furthermore, the above limitations are the property of the TDR and the attach TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review shows different types of faults displayed on the scope.
Regarding to claim 5, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 4, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises:
determining the presence of a third reflection with a positive polarity in either the terminated
wherein the second distance is twice the first distance, wherein if there is no third reflection, no shield fault is detected.
The above limitations are the property of the TDR and the attach TDR Tutorial and Riser Bond TDR Product Review shows different types of faults displayed on the scope. Furthermore, same equipment and setup would yield a same expected result.
Regarding to claim 6, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 5, wherein if the first, second, and third reflections are determined to be present, a shield fault is located at the first distance along the cable or transmission line (same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 7, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 2, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a first reflection with a negative polarity in the terminated echo response at a first distance along the cable or transmission line, wherein if there is no first reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable).
Regarding to claim 8, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 7, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a second reflection with a negative polarity in the open-circuit echo response at the first distance along the cable or transmission line, wherein an amplitude of the second reflection is the same as the amplitude and characteristics of the first reflection, wherein if there is no second reflection, no shield fault is detected (this claim directs toward open-circuit echo response and short-circuit echo response therefore examiner do not consider the claim. Furthermore, this is the property of the TDR).
Regarding to claim 9, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 8, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a third reflection with a positive polarity in the terminated echo response at a second distance along the cable or transmission line, wherein the second distance is twice the first distance; determining the presence of a fourth reflection with a positive polarity in the open-circuit echo response at the second distance along the cable or transmission line; wherein if there is no third reflection and no fourth reflection, no shield fault is detected, and wherein if the first, second, and either of the third or fourth reflections are determined to be present, a shield fault is located at the first distance along the cable or transmission line (this claim depends on claim 8 which directs toward open-circuit echo response and short-circuit echo response therefore examiner do not consider the claim. Furthermore, this is the property of the TDR).
Regarding to claim 10, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 2, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a first reflection with a positive polarity in the open-circuit echo response at a first distance, wherein the first distance is equal to twice a length of the cable or transmission line, wherein if there is no first reflection, no shield fault is detected, and wherein if the presence of the first reflection is determined, a shield fault is located at half the first distance along the cable or transmission line (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 11, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 2, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a second reflection with a negative polarity in the terminated echo response at a second distance, the second distance equal to a length of the cable or transmission line, wherein if there is no second reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 12, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 11, wherein determining the presence of a shield-fault comprises: determining the presence of a third reflection with a positive polarity in the terminated echo response at a third distance, the third distance equal to twice the cable length, wherein if there is no third reflection, no shield fault is detected, and wherein if the second and third reflections are determined to be present, a shield fault is located at the second distance along the cable or transmission line (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 13, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR, comprises obtaining a first echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line (A broadest reasonable interpretation, , Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the same equipment and setup, therefore the TDR would detect the echo response from the first end of the cable or transmission line); obtaining a second echo of the cable or transmission line from a second end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (A broadest reasonable interpretation, , Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the same equipment and setup, therefore the TDR would detect the echo response from the first end of the cable or transmission line).
Regarding to claim 14, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in the cable or transmission line according to claim 13, further comprising: determining the presence of a first reflection with a negative polarity in the first echo response at a first distance; wherein if there is no first reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 15, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in the cable or transmission line according to claim 14, further comprising: determining the presence of a second reflection with a negative polarity in the second echo response at a second distance; wherein if there is no second reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 16, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in the cable or transmission line according to claim 15, further comprising: determining the presence of a third reflection with a positive polarity in the first echo response at a third distance, the third distance equal to twice the first distance; wherein if there is no third reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 17, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in the cable or transmission line according to claim 16, further comprising: determining the presence of a fourth reflection with a positive polarity in the second echo response at a fourth distance, the fourth distance equal to twice the second distance; wherein if there is no fourth reflection, no shield fault is detected (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Regarding to claim 18, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in the cable or transmission line according to claim 17, further comprising: determining the presence of fifth reflection in the first echo response at a fifth distance, the fifth distance equal to the first distance minus the second distance; determining the presence of sixth reflection in the second echo response at a sixth distance, the sixth distance equal to the second distance minus the first distance; wherein if the fifth reflection or the sixth reflection are determined to be present, no shield fault is detected; wherein if there is no fifth reflection and no sixth reflection, a shield fault is detected at the first distance from the first end of the cable or transmission line (this is the property of the TDR, if there the reflection signal having no reflection indicated no fault and there is a polarity indicated faulty cable and same equipment and setup would yield a same expected results).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson and further in view of Pickerd.
Regarding to claim 19, Robson discloses a method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line (col. 3 lines 11-37 discloses Time domain reflectometers can locate shorts, opens, defects in the shield of the cable, foreign substances in the cable, kinks, and more), the method comprising:
obtaining a terminated echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR whilst the cable or transmission line is terminated at the second end (col. 6 lines 52-54 discloses representative TDR pulse may comprise a 300 mV amplitude into a 50 ohm load);
determining a presence of a shield-fault by comparing respective locations of reflections in the open-circuit, terminated and, short-circuit echo responses (col. 17 lines 16-17 discloses the TDR reading can be stored in memory and compared to a reference TDR signal).
However, Robson does not disclose obtaining an open-circuit echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR, whilst the cable or transmission line is open-circuited at a second end; obtaining a short-circuit echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR whilst the cable or transmission line is short-circuited at the second end; identifying a plurality of reflections in the open-circuit echo response, the terminated echo response, and the short-circuit echo response.
Pickerd discloses a system, apparatus and method for performing differential return loss measurements an open-circuit echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR, whilst the cable or transmission line is open-circuited at a second end; (fig. 2 and paragraphs 66 discloses and shows the system include a termination fixture 50 connected at the end of the cable with the termination as short circuit, open circuit or a load impedance);
obtaining a short-circuit echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line using TDR whilst the cable or transmission line is short-circuited at the second end (fig. 2 and paragraphs 66 discloses and shows the system include a termination fixture 50 connected at the end of the cable with the termination as short circuit, open circuit or a load impedance); and further discloses identifying a plurality of reflections in the open-circuit echo response, the terminated echo response, and the short-circuit echo response (paragraphs 66 of Pickerd).
By incorporate Pickerd into Robson. Robson in view of Pickerd would configure to identify a plurality of reflections in the open-circuit echo response, the terminated echo response, and the short-circuit echo response.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Pickerd into Robson in order to offset signal acquisition errors within measurements made during the DUT load condition. Furthermore, to terminate at the second end of the cable under test with a matching impedance would provide accurate measurement.
Claim(s) 13 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson in view of Pickerd as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cahill et al. (US 20230152183 hereinafter Cahill).
Regarding to claim 13, Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the method for detecting a shield-fault in a cable or transmission line according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR, comprises obtaining a first echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line (A broadest reasonable interpretation, , Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the same equipment and setup, therefore the TDR would detect the echo response from the first end of the cable or transmission line); obtaining a second echo of the cable or transmission line from a second end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR (A broadest reasonable interpretation, , Robson in view of Pickerd discloses the same equipment and setup, therefore the TDR would detect the echo response from the first end of the cable or transmission line).
Even if Robson in view of Pickerd does not disclose wherein obtaining at least one echo response of the cable or transmission line from a first end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR, comprises obtaining a first echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line; obtaining a second echo of the cable or transmission line from a second end of the cable or transmission line using time domain reflectometry, TDR.
Cahill discloses a pair of optical time domain reflectometers and the DUT is between the TDR (see fig. 1) therefore the TDRs would detect the first echo response of the cable or transmission line from the first end of the cable or transmission line and the second echo of the cable or transmission line from a second end of the cable or transmission line.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Cahill into Robson in view of Pickerd in order to create a composite trace that provides an end-to-end characterization of the DUT.
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
Prosecution Insights