DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of a grammatical error. Going forward with examination, the claim is interpreted to be:
--The test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the compressive load bearing capacity of the elongate base is 100 tons or more.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 104614261 A; hereinafter “Wang.” This Office action provides a machine translation of Wang).
1. Wang teaches a test rig for a
a sheave module (comprising a frame 20 and a sheave 21) including a sheave (21) for holding a
a load module (comprising a frame 13, a loading wheel/sheave 25, and a servo cylinder 2) for applying tension to the
an elongate base (comprising a frame 24 with at least one leg 41) for placement between the sheave module (20, 21) and the load module (13, 25, 2), the elongate base (24, 41) being configured to act as a horizontal beam that can hold a compressive load generated by tension in the
PNG
media_image1.png
848
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
666
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang doesn’t expressively teach:
the cable product (15) being a subsea cable product;
wherein the sheave (21) can be reversibly divided into parts for transportation in one or more container(s) of smaller cross-section than the diameter of the sheave (21); and
wherein the elongate base (24, 41) can be reversibly divided into parts for transportation in one or more container(s) of smaller length than the whole length of the elongate base (24, 41).
However, it appears that Wang test rig is capable of testing any cable product, including but not limited to a subsea cable product. Therefore, one may use Wang test rig for any cable product, including but not limited to a “subsea” cable product. Moreover, it appears that such a subsea cable product as claimed is not any part of the test rig as claimed, but merely an unpatentable intended use of the test rig.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use Wang test rig for any cable product, including but not limited to a subsea cable product (as claimed), in order to test any cable including such a subsea cable.
Also, it has been held that making a known structure to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts, is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Wolf, 251 F.2d 854, 855, 116 USPQ 443, 444 (CCPA 1958). Moreover, it has also been held that making a known structure to be portable is an obvious variation, thus unpatentable. In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735, 93 USPQ 23, 26 (CCPA 1952). As for the present case, it appears that Wang test rig as a whole, or any part of the test rig including but not limited to the sheave (21) and the elongate base (24, 41), may be made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts and/or to be portable, for ease of manufacturing and/or for ease of transportation, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have Wang test rig as a whole, or any part of the test rig including but not limited to the sheave (21) and the elongate base (24, 41), made to be integral, or vice versa, to be multiple parts and/or to be portable, for ease of manufacturing and/or for ease of transportation, for example. As a result, the sheave (21) may be reversibly divided into parts for transportation in one or more container(s) of smaller cross-section than the diameter of the sheave (21); and the elongate base (24, 41) may be reversibly divided into parts for transportation in one or more container(s) of smaller length than the whole length of the elongate base (24, 41).
2. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, being configured to fully reversibly disassemble into parts each sized to fit into an intermodal shipping container (as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1).
3. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the divided parts of the sheave (21) and the elongate base (24, 41) each fit into a cross-section defined by a rectangle of 2.3 m by 2.5 m or less (or any sizes, as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1).
4. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheave (21) comprises a wheel (21) that can be disassembled into segments and/or sectors in order to fit into the container(s) of smaller cross-section than the diameter of the sheave 21 (or of any sizes, as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1).
7. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the elongate base (24, 41) comprises an upper load bearing structure (24) formed by a number of upper base sections 24 (as is evident from at least figs. 1, 2) and a lower load bearing structure (41) formed by a number of lower base sections (legs 41).
Note that it has been held that duplicating part of a known structure for a multiple effect is an obvious variation, thus uninventive and unpatentable. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). As for the present case, it appears that the upper load bearing structure (24) may be formed by a number of upper base sections (as is evident from at least figs. 1, 2) and a lower load bearing structure (41) may be formed by a number of lower base sections (legs 41).
12. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the test rig as a whole has a maximum assembled length of more than 80 m (or any length. Note that it has been held that changing size or shape of a known structure is obvious variation, thus uninventive and unpatentable. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it appears that Wang test rig as a whole may be made to be big or small, or to have a maximum assembled length of more than 80 m, or of any length).
13. Wang as modified teaches the test rig as claimed in claim 1, wherein the compressive load bearing capacity of the elongate base is 100 tons or more.
Note that, similar to the discussion in claim 12, it has been held that changing size or shape of a known structure is obvious variation, thus uninventive and unpatentable. In the present case, it appears that Wang test rig as a whole may be made to be big or small, thereby may have the compressive load bearing capacity of the elongate base is 100 tons or more (or less).
14. Wang as modified teaches a kit of parts that, that when assembled, provides the test rig of claim 1 (as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1).
15. Wang as modified teaches a method of providing testing for subsea cable product, the method comprising:
employing a test rig as claimed in claim 1 to apply tension to a subsea cable product during a test, wherein the method further comprises either one of or both of:
receiving the test rig as a kit of parts transported in intermodal containers, and assembling the test rig before performing the test (as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1); and/or
after performing the test, disassembling the test rig and loading into intermodal shipping containers (as is obvious from the discussion in claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following would be a statement for indication of an allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…wherein the sheave comprises an inner sheave wheel of smaller diameter and a sheave wheel extension that can combine with the inner sheave wheel to provide a wheel of larger diameter.”
(Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5.)
With respect to claim 8, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…wherein fixings between the upper base sections and the lower base sections are the same for each of the sections in order to allow the sections to be joined in any order as well as permitting a different number of sections to be included to vary the overall length of the assembled test rig by changing the length of the elongate base.”
With respect to claim 9, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…wherein the test rig is arranged so that, when said test rig is in use, the location of the subsea cable product is aligned with a shear centre of the elongate base in order to ensure that the elongate base is loaded in compression without any bending or twisting load.”
With respect to claim 10, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…wherein the elongate base is structurally symmetrical in cross-section and the test rig is arranged so that, when it is in use, the location of the subsea cable product is aligned with a halfway point on the height of the elongate base.”
With respect to claim 11, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…a block mounted on the load module for pulling a winch cable attached to the subsea cable product that is being tested, wherein the block comprises two block wheels mounted spaced apart from one another so that the distance between the outer edges of the two block wheels is larger than 2.5 m.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 October 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights