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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-011591, filed on 1/28/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/24. The submission 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: signal output unit, measurement unit in claim 1; detection unit in claim 1-9, and storage unit in claim 9.
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.
According to the specification and drawing, the signal output unit broadly interpreted as signal source injected to the cable under test;
the measurement unit broadly interpreted as any convention, well known measurement device capable to measure the reflection such as TDR, FDR, network analyzer or the like;
the detection unit broadly interpreted as any convention, well known detection device capable to measure detect the reflection such as TDR, FDR, network analyzer or the like;
the detection unit broadly interpreted as any convention, well known storage device as ROM, MEMORY, HDD, computer or the like.
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 § 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) 1-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUROIWA et al. (JP 2021175078, hereinafter KUROIWA), and further in view of KITO et al. (JP 2015021748, hereinafter KITO).
Regarding to claim 1, KUROIWA discloses a detection device (abstract discloses a cable evaluation system) comprising:
a signal output unit (fig. 1show 10 with signal generation unit 11) configured to output a measurement signal having a frequency component to a target line (fig. 1 and paragraph 0035 shows 11 to generate a test signal of an arbitrary frequency to cable 100);
a measurement unit (fig. 1[15]) configured to receive, from the target line, a response signal including a signal in which the measurement signal is reflected, and measure at least one of an amplitude and a phase of the received response signal (fig. 1 and paragraph 0034 shows and discloses 15 to receive the reflect signal from the end of 100 at terminal 31, 13); and
a detection unit (fig. 1[16]) configured to calculate an evaluation value based on a measurement result obtained by the measurement unit, and detect a change in a level of bending of the target line, based on a change over time in the calculated evaluation value (fig. 1, abstract discloses method that can observe changes in amplitude characteristics that reflect phase changes caused by bending of a high-frequency coaxial cable; paragraph 0060 discloses the cable evaluation system 1 according to the present embodiment can observe the change in the amplitude characteristic reflecting the phase change due to the bending of the RF cable 100 and paragraphs 0045-47 shows and discloses 16 calculate the change in level of bending of 100).
KUROIWA teach to observe amplitude and phase due to bending instead of detect a change of level bending based on at least one of an amplitude and a phase.
However, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to have the detection unit to determine the bending of the target line based on the at least one of phase and magnitude as a matter data manipulator and intended use.
Furthermore, KITO discloses an OTDR (Optical Time Domain Reflectometer) to determine the position of the bending failure, the degree of bending.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to measure the angle (degree) of bending of a cable in order to detect a failure of the optical line or to specify a failure position.
Regarding to claim 2, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a change in a bending angle of the target line (Kito discloses to detect the degree bending of a cable).
Regarding to claim 3, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a change in a curvature of the target line (by determine the degree of bending indicate determine the curvature and KUROIWA discloses to determine the cable before bending and after bending which is the change in curvature of the target line).
Regarding to claim 9, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit stores a detection result of the change in the level of bending of the target line into a storage unit (KUROIWA discloses a microcomputer including a CPU, ROM, RAM, HDD, or the like, a personal computer, or the like) .
Regarding to claim 10, KUROIWA discloses a detection method in a detection device (fig. 1 and paragraph 0052), comprising:
outputting a measurement signal having a frequency component to a target line (fig. 1 and paragraph 0035 shows 11 to generate a test signal of an arbitrary frequency to cable 100);
receiving, from the target line, a response signal including a signal in which the measurement signal is reflected, and measuring at least one of an amplitude and a phase of the received response signal (fig. 1 and paragraph 0034 shows and discloses 15 to receive the reflect signal from the end of 100 at terminal 31, 13); and
calculating an evaluation value based on a measurement result of at least one of the amplitude and the phase, and detecting a change in a level of bending of the target line, based on a change over time in the calculated evaluation value (fig. 1, abstract discloses method that can observe changes in amplitude characteristics that reflect phase changes caused by bending of a high-frequency coaxial cable; paragraph 0060 discloses the cable evaluation system 1 according to the present embodiment can observe the change in the amplitude characteristic reflecting the phase change due to the bending of the RF cable 100 and paragraphs 0045-47 shows and discloses 16 calculate the change in level of bending of 100).
KUROIWA teach to observe amplitude and phase due to bending instead of detect a change of level bending based on at least one of an amplitude and a phase.
However, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to have the detection unit to determine the bending of the target line based on the at least one of phase and magnitude as a matter data manipulator and intended use.
Furthermore, KITO discloses an OTDR (Optical Time Domain Reflectometer) to determine the position of the bending failure, the degree of bending.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to measure the angle (degree) of bending of a cable in order to detect a failure of the optical line or to specify a failure position.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUROIWA in view of Kito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasaki (US 20070246242, hereinafter Iwasaki).
Regarding to claim 4, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the target line is a transmission line (intended use limitation and Kito discloses optical cable which is a transmission line), and the detection unit calculates, as the evaluation value, at least one of: a phase difference between the measurement signal and the response signal; a reflection coefficient that is a ratio of an amplitude of the response signal to an amplitude of the measurement signal; an impedance of the transmission line; and a resistance of the transmission line (abstract of KUROIWA discloses the amplitude and phase of the response changed due to bending. Therefore, the change in a phase difference between the measurement signal and the response signal; a reflection coefficient that is a ratio of an amplitude of the response signal to an amplitude of the measurement signal; an impedance of the transmission line; and a resistance of the transmission line as merely the properties of cable).
Furthermore, paragraph 0088 of Iwasaki discloses to measure impedance in the bending test.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to measure impedance of bending of a cable as a matter of choice without unexpected result.
Regarding to claim 5, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the target line is a transmission line, and the detection unit calculates, as the evaluation value, a reactance of the transmission line (abstract of KUROIWA discloses the amplitude and phase of the response changed due to bending thus the change in reactance of the cable under test as the property of cable).
Furthermore, paragraph 0088 of Iwasaki discloses to measure impedance in the bending test. Therefore, it would be obvious to a POSITA to calculate the reactance of the cable.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to measure impedance of bending of a cable as a matter of choice without unexpected result.
Regarding to claim 6, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the target line is a detection line provided along a transmission line, and the detection unit calculates, as the evaluation value, at least one of: a capacitance of the detection line, an inductance of the detection line, and a characteristic impedance of the detection line (abstract of KUROIWA discloses the amplitude and phase of the response changed due to bending. Therefore at least one of: a capacitance of the detection line, an inductance of the detection line, and a characteristic impedance of the detection line as merely the properties of cable).
Furthermore, paragraph 0088 of Iwasaki discloses to measure impedance in the bending test.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to measure impedance of bending of a cable as a matter of choice without unexpected result.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUROIWA in view of Kito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 6439059, hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding to claim 7, KUROIWA in view of Kito discloses the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (fig. 1[16] of KUROIWA) except configured counts the number of times of bending of the target line, based on a detection result of the change in the level of bending of the target line.
Inoue discloses a bending test method include measuring the count of bending up to disconnection (col.2 lines 23-34) which indicates there is a counting unit.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would be obvious to a POSITA to count the number bending of a cable in order to predict the life of cable due to maximum distortion quantity of a conductor part of a wire.
Regarding to claim 8, KUROIWA in view of Kito and Inoue discloses the detection device according to claim 7, wherein the detection unit performs a predetermined notification process when a count value of the number of times of bending exceeds a predetermined value (KUROIWA discloses a display device, therefore by incorporate Inoue into KUROIWA would display the result when the number of count when the cable disconnects due to bending deformation).
Conclusion
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 (571)272-4448. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SON T LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863