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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/24, 6/21/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “measuring unit configured to measure elongation”, “a data generation unit configured to generate a relational expression” and “age state derivation unit configured to derive an age state” in claim 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-7 recite “measuring unit configured to measure elongation”, “a data generation unit configured to generate a relational expression” and “age state derivation unit configured to derive an age state”, which is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as indicated in the Claim interpretation section above. The (original) Claims, Specification, Abstract and drawings fail to disclose a corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function. After a thorough review of the Claims, Specification and Abstract, there is no mention of any hardware or software structure which is used to perform the claimed function.
Particularly, in ¶[0024]-[0033], and ¶[0044]-[0047], there is only mention of the function which the units are configured to perform and no description of any specific structure of the units are provided. Furthermore, Figure 1 only shows a block with “measuring unit”, “data generation unit” and “age state derivation unit”. Thus, no corresponding structure is shown for performing the entire claimed function.
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 1-7 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.
Claim limitations of “measuring unit configured to measure elongation”, “a data generation unit configured to generate a relational expression” and “age state derivation unit configured to derive an age state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1, 3-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al., CN 113588452 in view of Nishimura, JP 6930528
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a system for monitoring an age state of a power cable (Title; Abstract), the system comprising: a measuring unit configured to measure elongation at break of at least one power cable (Page 5: “carrying out tensile test to each sample to be tested, so as to obtain the cable elongation”); a data generation unit configured to generate a relational expression by using elongation at break of each of a heated cable to which a voltage is applied to raise a temperature thereof (Page 5-6; “using linear regression to fit out the index relation curve of the cable to be tested under different temperature stress, aging duration and cable elongation”; life prediction formula generated based on cable tested at different temperatures, therefore data generation unit is inherent); and an age state derivation unit configured to derive an age state of a target power cable by calculating elongation at break of the target power cable whose age state is to be monitored by using the relational expression (Fig. 2; prediction model 30 used to obtain prediction result).
Sun is silent in determining elongation at break of a non-heated cable to which no voltage is applied, among the measured power cables. Nishimura teaches determining elongation at break of a non-heated component and a heated component (Page 17- unheated and heated state elongation at break measurement of the component). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into Sun for the benefit of determining the properties of a cable at multiple temperatures and environments.
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches wherein the data generation unit generates a graph showing a change in an age state over time by using the elongation at break of the heated cable Sun is silent in a non-heated cable. Nishimura teaches measuring elongation at break of a heated and non-heated component (Page 17 - unheated and heated state elongation at break measurement of the component). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into Sun for the benefit of determining the properties of a cable at multiple temperatures and environments.
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses wherein the age state derivation unit derives an aging rate according to a temperature of the heated cable (cable tested under different temperatures). Sun is silent in deriving an aging rate according to a temperature of the non-heated cable. Nishimura teaches deriving an aging rate according to a heated and non-heated component (Page 17 - unheated and heated state elongation at break measurement of the component). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into Sun for the benefit of determining the properties of a cable at multiple temperatures and environments.
Regarding claim 6, Sun is silent in wherein the heated cable is a power cable with a temperature of 70° C. to 110° C., and the non-heated cable is a power cable with a temperature of 20° C. to 60° C. Nishimura teaches wherein a heated component is a component with a temperature of 70° C. to 110° C., and the non-heated component is a component with a temperature of 20° C. to 60° C (Page 17 – room temperature 23° C to heated at 130° C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into Sun for the benefit of determining the properties of a cable at multiple temperatures and environments.
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses wherein the age state is derived in any one unit of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, and years (Page 6 – “aging life (h)”).
Regarding claim 8, Sun discloses a method for monitoring an age state of a power cable, the method comprising: measuring, by a measuring unit, elongation at break of at least one power cable (Page 5 - “carrying out tensile test to each sample to be tested, so as to obtain the cable elongation”); generating data by a data generation unit generating a relational expression by using elongation at break of each of a heated cable to which a voltage is applied to raise a temperature thereof (Page 5-6; “using linear regression to fit out the index relation curve of the cable to be tested under different temperature stress, aging duration and cable elongation”; life prediction formula generated based on cable tested at different temperatures); and deriving, by an age state derivation unit, an age state of a target power cable by calculating elongation at break of the target power cable whose age state is to be monitored by using the relational expression (Fig. 2; prediction model 30 used to obtain prediction result).
Sun is silent in determining elongation at break of a non-heated cable to which no voltage is applied, among the measured power cables. Nishimura teaches determining elongation at break of a non-heated component and a heated component (Page 17 - unheated and heated state elongation at break measurement of the component). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into Sun for the benefit of determining the properties of a cable at multiple temperatures and environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the target power cable is a non-heated cable exposed for a predetermined period of time to a location adjacent to a power cable to which a voltage is applied” in combination with all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “ wherein the age state derivation unit derives elongation at break of a non-heated cable corresponding to the elongation at break of the target power cable and calculates the derived elongation at break of the non-heated cable by using the relational expression to derive elongation at break of a heated cable” in combination with all the limitations of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on 571.272.2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858