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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 20) in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not made a sufficient showing that searching all of the claims in the application would be unduly burdensome. This is not found persuasive because reasons for burden were incorporated into the restriction requirement, and Applicant has made no effort to specifically point out how or why burden is lacking.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The examiner has withdrawn the restriction of species in view of the prior art as cited below. As such, claims 3 and 4 are both examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the cable abnormality detection system is operatively associated with a wire-cutting machine…”. It is unclear as recited whether the wire-cutting machine and its associated structure is a positively recited aspect of the claimed system, or if the claim is merely expressing the intended use of the system. The claim does not, for example, recite that the system “further comprises” the wire-cutting machine. It is unclear how the system’s operative association with the wire-cutting machine limits the system, if at all.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper and lower limits" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the insulator jacket coating thickness" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0161824).
Claim 20: Duncan et al. discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 3B) for cable abnormality detection, the system comprising: a laser sensor measurement system (28 - paragraphs 104-105) for measuring a cable diameter of a cable (Id.); a guide assembly (wheels 16, 18) for guiding entry of the cable through the laser sensor measurement system; a memory that stores computer-executable instructions (implied by a computer - e.g. computer 162a, paragraphs 65, 104, 106, 144, 207); and a processor (Id.) that executes the computer-executable instructions and causes the processor to: measure the cable diameter with respect to upper limits of the cable diameter (measure diameter and compare to reference diameter and threshold - paragraph 106); determine that the cable diameter is outside of the upper limits using the cable diameter measurements and cable parameter tolerances (Id.); and initiate a signal to commence a remedial action (issue an alert signal), in response to determining that the cable diameter is outside of the upper limits (Id.).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. in view of Zhang (CN117308799 with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Duncan et al. discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 3B) for cable abnormality detection, the system comprising: a laser sensor measurement system (28 - paragraphs 104-105) for measuring a cable diameter of a cable (Id.); a roller assembly (wheels 16, 18) for guiding entry of the cable through the laser sensor measurement system; a measurement system mounting bracket (70) upon which the laser sensor measurement system and the roller assembly are operatively associated (Fig. 3A; paragraph 98); a memory that stores computer-executable instructions (implied by a computer - e.g. computer 162a, paragraphs 65, 104, 106, 144, 207); and a processor (Id.) that executes the computer-executable instructions and causes the processor to: obtain upper limit tolerance requirements for the cable (measure diameter and compare to reference diameter and threshold - paragraph 106); compare the cable diameter with respect to upper limit tolerance requirements of the cable diameter (Id.); and determine that the cable diameter is outside of upper limit tolerance requirements of the cable diameter (Id.).
Duncan issues and alert signal but does not necessarily stop the cable from running through a wire-cutting machine upon determining that the cable diameter is outside of upper limit tolerance requirements. However, Zhang teaches a similar system which both generates an alert signal and stops the system from proceeding with the production process when a measured diameter exceeds tolerance (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stopped the cable from running through a wire-cutting machine upon determining that the cable diameter is outside of upper limit tolerance requirements in order to have allowed for staff intervention. It is noted that the wire-cutting machine is not positively recited and so merely stopping the system as claimed could serve the purpose of stopping the cable from running through a wire-cutting machine if such a machine were provided downstream.
Claim 2: Duncan implies that the memory includes further computer-executable instructions that further cause the processor to: obtain lower limit measurements for the cable (implied by the difference between the measured and reference diameters being generally being outside of tolerance, which encompasses both upper and lower limits); detect that the cable diameter is outside of the lower limits (as cited above); and initiate a remedial action (alert signal) in response to the outside of the lower limits detection.
Claim 3: A discussed above, Zhang teaches that the remedial action can include stopping the cable from running through the wire-cutting machine.
Claim 4: Referring to Duncan, the remedial action is sending an alert regarding the outside of the lower limits detection (as cited above).
Claims 5-6: The memory implicitly includes further computer-executable instructions that further cause the processor to: initiate a remedial action in response to the outside of the upper limits detection, wherein the remedial action is sending an alert regarding the outside of the upper limits detection (as cited above).
Claim 7: The examiner notes that claim 7 may be interpreted such that the wire-cutting machine is not positively recited and thus its structure is not a required part of the system. To be “operatively associated” therewith does not necessarily narrow the claimed system as it may simply be adjacent to the wire-cutting mechanism in a way that would allow the wire to travel therethrough.
Claim 7 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ness et al. (U.S. Patent 2,441,837).
Alternatively, Duncan and Zhang do not teach wherein the cable abnormality detection system is operatively associated with a wire-cutting machine, wherein the wire-cutting machine includes guide tubes through which a cable to be cut passes, and wherein the wire-cutting machine further includes a belt system for pulling the cable off a cable reel, through the laser sensor measurement system, and through the guide tubes of the wire-cutting machine. However, Ness et al. teaches a wire-cutting machine, wherein the wire-cutting machine includes guide tubes (19, 20) through which a cable (W) to be cut passes, and wherein the wire-cutting machine further includes a belt system (13, 16) for pulling the cable off a cable reel and through the guide tubes of the wire-cutting machine (column 2, lines 3-11). Thus, each of the system of Duncan and the wire-cutting machine of Ness are known, the only difference being the combination of the “old elements” into a single invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used these elements in conjunction with one another since the operation of one is in no way dependent on the other, and the two could be used in combination for the predictable result of feeding a cable into a wire cutter. (MPEP 2143 I. A.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0258740).
Claim 8: Duncan et al. and Zhang teach a system substantially as claimed except for the programming as recited in claim 8. However, Matsumoto teaches a system for inspecting a wire which obtains wire core measurements for the cable (31) and the upper and lower limits of the insulator jacket coating (32) thickness (implied by comparing to a standard thickness - paragraph 80); determine the insulator jacket coating thickness of the cable using the cable diameter and the wire core measurements for the cable (paragraph 78); detect when the insulator jacket coating thickness is outside of the upper limits or the lower limits (paragraph 80); and initiate a remedial action (display results and notify operator, Id.) in response to the detection of the insulator jacket coating thickness being outside of the upper or lower limits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this function in the system of Duncan in order to have also verified proper insulation thickness of the cable. While Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a memory including computer-executable instructions and a processor, the calculation unit 28 including the determination unit 28b are implicitly computer-based, and otherwise Duncan already establishes a computer-based system which would logically be programmed with the extra features as taught by Matsumoto.
Claim 9: Duncan et al. and Zhang teach a system substantially as claimed except for wherein the laser sensor measurement system includes two or more sensors. However, Matsumoto teaches a system for inspecting a wire wherein a laser sensor measurement system includes two or more sensors (26 - paragraphs 65-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two or more sensors in order to have measured the wire from multiple sides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JPH06147840 discloses a system for measuring the diameter of a wire (using device 38) and, if the wire diameter falls outside a predetermined tolerance, stops the wet wire drawing machine 35.
CN220508115 discloses a system for measuring the insulation thickness of wire by comparing a core measurement of the wire to an external measurement of the insulated wire.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
