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 12 September 2024 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: a mechanical test module, an electrical test module, a thermal test module, and a control module in claim 1. Each of the limitations are equivalent to means, followed by the phrase “configured to” which is equivalent to for.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 10-11 of the claim, the phrases “the dummy cable” and “a dummy cable” are recited in that order. For clarity and antecedent purposes, the cable should first be referred to as “a dummy cable” and then “the dummy cable” in the second instance. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of a mechanical test module configured to perform mechanical aging “by forming a fixing end and an action end on the test cable.” It is unclear as to how the test module forms the fixing and action ends since they appear to be part of the cable and are not formed in the manner claimed. For example, paragraph 0048 merely recites that the cable “includes a fixing end 210 and an action end 220” and not that they are formed by the test module itself.
The claim recites the limitation of “a control module” configured to perform “data input, control processing, monitoring, and storage of the seawater tank module, the mechanical test module, the thermal test module, and the electrical test module” (emphasis added). It is not clear if this refers to data storage for these elements or physical storage of the elements themselves.
The final two lines of the claim of “so that mechanical, thermal, and electrical tests on a dynamic cable are simultaneously performed” is unclear as it reads as a step of performing the tests simultaneously. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted to read as “wherein mechanical, thermal, and electrical tests on a dynamic cable can be simultaneously performed.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations appear to be steps which are being performed as a method. For the purpose of examination, they will be interpreted as “a vertical actuator formed on an upper end of the seawater tank module and capable of pressing the test cable, and a horizontal actuator capable of performing a horizontal movement on a side of the action end can operate in cooperation with each other to simulate mechanical aging caused by water flow.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is presented in a similar manner to that of claim 4 and should be amended accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation that the horizontal actuator “is driven on a rail” should be amended to read as “capable of being driven on a rail” or similar for clarity.
The phrase “a moving direction thereof” is unclear as while it is assumed the limitation refers to the actuator on the rail, multiple movable elements have been previously disclosed which the limitation could refer to.
Regarding claim 7, the claim refers to “necessary information” in line 2. It is not clear as to what would be considered “necessary” versus unnecessary information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 may be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as best interpreted, the prior art fails to teach a system as claimed comprising the submarine cable thermal-electrical-mechanical composite testing system including the seawater tank to form a seawater environment for a test cable, mechanical test module, and thermal test module configured to measure heat of a dummy cable generated while applying current to the dummy cable formed independently of the test cable and to apply the current to the test cable while monitoring the heat as generated heat of the test cable. Joen and Kwan each teach a tank for seawater testing of a cable including thermal and current conditions, while Pham, Lee disclose mechanical testing of a cable. However, none of the prior art, when combined discloses the use of the dummy cable through which a current is passed and a similar current is applied to the test cable based on the dummy cable’s generated heat. As all remaining claims ultimately depend from claim 1, they are deemed allowable for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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 Martin 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights