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 .
Summary
Claims 10-28 are pending. Claims 10-28 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 10-28 is/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.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites that it is “A method for operating a cable” however no cable operation is recited. The result of the method is “producing a characteristic,” however there is no connection between that characteristic and the operation of the cable. The Examiner recommends claiming “A method for evaluating a cable” and then adding a step wherein the characteristic is used in the evaluation of the cable.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a sensor to produce the signals, some kind of operation of the mentioned cable, and some kind of processor to perform the calculations.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 19, and 21: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claims 18 and 28: It is unclear what the language of claims 18 and 28 means. If the “application of the cable” is a use of the cable, then it must be inherent that operation data (of the cable) is specific to use of the cable. These claims have not been further examined.
Regarding claims 11-18 and 20-28: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 10-18: The claim(s) recite(s) a broad algorithm without any concrete connection to the apparatus that generated the data, the cable it supposed to used on, or the apparatus that (presumably) performs the method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it could be done completely in a person’s mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no conjunction with either the sensor that generated the data or the computer that is doing the calculations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by KEMNITZ et al. (US 20120174683).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, KEMNITZ discloses: A method for operating a cable (103 in FIG. 10; para. 172), the method comprising: storing sensor signals generated by a sensor (optical fiber sensor 5 in para. 81), when the sensor detects a use of the cable (A record of bending strain is shown in FIG. 15. Para. 17, 161, 169 discuss this.); evaluating the sensor signals (A record of bending strain is shown in FIG. 15. Para. 17, 161, 169 discuss this.); based on operating data relating to past and/or future data (such as positioning data in para. 156-157) and producing a characteristic for the cable based on the sensor signals (para. 17-18).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, KEMNITZ discloses: the past and/or future data depend on a torque and/or speed of a cable drum (para. 4, 17, 161).
Regarding claims 13 and 23: As best understood, KEMNITZ discloses: determining a plurality of characteristics at different times (real-time monitoring of temperature and strain in para. 134, 152); and evaluating the plurality of characteristics together (para. 134).
Regarding claims 14 and 24: As best understood, KEMNITZ discloses: the characteristic relates to at least 80% of a length of the cable (The optical fiber sensors extend along the entire length of the cable so it monitors the entire length.).
Regarding claims 17 and 27: As best understood, KEMNITZ discloses: detecting an anomaly of the cable (FIG. 15 and para. 169 show how an anomalous kink was detected based on an anomalous strain measurement.).
Regarding claim 19: KEMNITZ discloses: A system (FIG. 10), comprising: a cable (103) for electrical power supply (para. 4); a sensor (optical fiber sensor 5 in FIG. 1b; para. 81) arranged in the cable for generating sensor signals when detecting a use of the cable (A record of bending strain is shown in FIG. 15. Para. 17, 161, 169 discuss this.); and an evaluation facility designed to evaluate the sensor signals (A record of bending strain is shown in FIG. 15. Para. 17, 161, 169 discuss this.) based on operating data relating to past and/or future data (such as positioning data in para. 156-157) and to produce a characteristic for the cable based on the sensor signals (para. 17-18).
Regarding claim 20: KEMNITZ discloses: the cable is a trailing cable (para. 4-5).
Regarding claim 21: KEMNITZ discloses: the past and/or future data depend on a torque and/or speed of a cable drum (para. 4, 17, 161).
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) 12, 15, 16, 22, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMNITZ in view of CHRISTMAS (US 20040139806).
Use KEMNITZ and Christmas (para. 41 for predicting remaining life)
Regarding claims 12, 15, 16, 22, 25, and 26: As best understood, KEMNITZ does not explicitly disclose predicting a stress on the cable.
CHRISTMAS however does teach taking stress measurements of a chain and using Miner’s rule to predict stress levels in the chain (para. 41), thus meeting the limitations of claims 12 and 22. This is a prediction of wear to determine the lifespan of the chain (para. 41-42), thus meeting the limitations of claims 16 and 26. CHRISTMAS also teaches that this simulation is based on a predetermined expected use of the cable (para. 41-42), thus meeting the limitations of claims 15 and 25.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to predict future stress levels, as taught by CHRISTMAS, with the stress data of KEMNITZ (such as that shown in FIG. 15; para. 93) so that the lifespan of the cable can be calculated so that it is known when it should be replaced (para. 41-42 of CHRISTMAS).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Several references have been added to the Notice of References Cited for teaching sensors used on cables/ropes/chains to monitor stress.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
