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 .
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimoto (US 9,302,397) in view of Nonen et al. (US 2023/0090896).
Regarding claim 6, Kimoto discloses a disconnection detection device (element 1, Fig. 2) that detects disconnection of a plurality of strands (elements 401, 402, Fig. 2) constituting a conductor of a cable (element 40, Fig. 2) wired in a device (element 10, Fig. 2) that is caused by motion of the device, the disconnection detection device comprising: a data acquisition processing unit (i.e., as part of prediction system 50, Fig. 5) that acquires resistance value data which is data of a resistance value of the conductor that changes in time series due to the motion of the device (see col. 7, lines 40-52); an analytical processing unit (i.e., as part of prediction system 50, Fig. 5) that generates motion information data, which is data showing changes over time in information about motion of the device, from the resistance value data, analyzes the resistance value data based on the motion information data and obtains an index value (i.e., stress) to detect strand disconnection (see col. 2, line 62 through col. 3, line 19); and a disconnection detection processing unit (i.e., as part of prediction system 50, Fig. 5) that detects the strand disconnection based on the index value obtained by the analytical processing unit (see col. 3, lines 20-48).
Although Kimoto does not appear to disclose using a trained model created by performing learning in advance with use of training data including the index value when there is no strand disconnection, the strand disconnection is detected based on the index value as a target subject to disconnection detection, Nonen et al. discloses a learned/trained model in advance based on an index value (i.e., operating data, e.g., the bending status, such as the number of bending times and the bending angle), the model structure showing the correlation between the operating data and the wire-break progress (see pars. [0086-0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved prediction accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, and 8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowance of claim 2 is the inclusion of in the analysis step, for each state of motion, an average value of the resistance value over a predetermined period of time when the motion is in that state is calculated and the index value being obtained by normalizing the average value, and in the disconnection detection step, the strand disconnection being detected based on the index value obtained in the analysis step. These limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 3 is the inclusion of in the analysis step, frequency analyses are performed on the motion information data and the resistance value data during a predetermined period of time and the index value is obtained based on results of the frequency analyses, and in the disconnection detection step, the strand disconnection being detected based on the index value obtained in the analysis step. These limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 4 and 5 have been found allowable due to their dependencies upon claim 3.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 7 is the inclusion of either the analytical processing unit, for each state of motion, calculating an average value of the resistance value over a predetermined period of time when the motion is in that state and obtains the index value by normalizing the average value, and the disconnection detection processing unit detecting the strand disconnection based on the index value obtained by the analytical processing unit, or the analytical processing unit performing frequency analysis on the motion information data and the resistance value data during a predetermined period of time and the index value is obtained based on results of the frequency analysis, and the disconnection detection processing unit detecting the strand disconnection based on the index value obtained by the analytical processing unit. These limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 8 is the inclusion of the analytical processing unit performing frequency analysis on the resistance value data during a predetermined period of time, a result of the frequency analysis of the motion information data being generated using the frequency analysis result of the resistance value data, and the index value being obtained based on results of the frequency analysis of the respective frequency analyses of the resistance value data and the motion information data, and the disconnection detection processing unit detecting the strand disconnection based on the index value obtained by the analytical processing unit. These limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., the specific index value-whether a normalized average resistance per motion state (claim 2/7 approach) or a frequency-analysis-derived cross-product (claim 3/8 approach) is generated and then used as training data for a model trained on the no-disconnection condition] are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kimoto discloses obtaining an index value (i.e., stress) by converting the value of electric resistance resulting from deformation of the slack portion of the cable into an amplitude of change in stress. Nonen et al. discloses utilizing a learned/trained model in advance based on an index value (i.e., operating data, e.g., the bending status, such as the number of bending times and the bending angle), the model structure showing the correlation between the operating data and the wire-break progress.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights