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 Objections
Claims 10, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 and 20 recite the first electrode, the second electrode, the drive unit, and the control unit with no antecedent basis in those claims.
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 11-19 depend from device claim 9 while reciting method steps c) and e). Those claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Adams (US 2015/0115976 A1 hereinafter “Adams”).
As to claim 1, Adams discloses in Figs. 1-2: An analysis device for measuring electrical properties of an insulating material, the analysis device comprising:
a sample releasing unit (unwind arbor 10 as shown in Fig. 1) (“a roll of material (here, two-ply material 12) may be loaded onto an unwind arbor 10”);
a sample receiving unit (rewind 28A, 28B as shown in Fig. 1) (“as it is rewound onto the collection cores”);
an electrical drive unit for moving a sample from the sample releasing unit to the sample receiving unit (“The speed of the web material through the machine may be, for example, 5-50 feet per minute”);
a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged opposing one another, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged between the sample releasing unit and sample receiving unit (nipped conductive polymer rollers 18A, 18B as shown in Figs. 1-2) (“Hipot tested in between the set of nipped conductive polymer rollers 18A (or 18B for second ply 16)”; “The nipped conductive polymer rollers 18A or 18B essentially act as electrodes”; “one roller connecting to the high voltage lead of the Hipot tester, and the other opposing roller connecting to the return lead of the tester”);
a voltage source electrically connected to the first electrode (“a Hipot tester that is connected to the rollers described herein”; “one roller connecting to the high voltage lead of the Hipot tester”);
and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the electrical drive unit and the voltage source (PLC) (“PLC (programmable logic controller) for integrating the winding machine with a touch screen HMI for operator interface, Hipot testers”; “When the machine is started, the Hipot tester(s) and optical inspection system may be activated automatically through the PLC”).
As to claim 4, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the minimum distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is such that the first electrode and the second electrode can both be brought in contact with the sample.
Adams discloses (nipped conductive polymer rollers 18A, 18B): “the web material to be tested moves along, it is essentially acting as an insulator between two conductive rollers”; “The two test rollers may be nipped together utilizing a linkage system of one roller moving and applying force against the opposing roller.”
As to claim 6, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the second electrode is connected to ground potential.
Adams discloses: “the other opposing roller connecting to the return lead of the tester.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 2, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US 2015/0115976 A1 hereinafter “Adams”).
As to claim 2, Adams discloses in Figs. 1-2 The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the analysis device further comprises detection means configured to detect a marking on the sample.
Adams discloses detection means on the web (line scan camera 24A, 24B as shown in Fig. 1) (“automatic defect mapping is also incorporated into the system through the integration of the Hipot testing and line scan camera systems”; “said line scan camera system being adapted for sending an output signal to an optical inspection system to look for the burnt mark”).
Adams does not disclose that the detected feature is a marking on the sample placed on the sample before the test.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the line scan camera 24A, 24B of Adams to detect a marking on the sample, because Adams already uses that camera to locate a visible mark on the same moving web and to map its position.
As to claim 3, The analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to correlate the marking on the sample to a spatial portion of the insulating material.
Adams discloses (PLC; line scan camera 24A, 24B): “with input signals from said PLC detecting the line speed of the web passing through the tester, the optical inspection system can calculate and distinguish the defect burnt mark from other flaws”; “at the end of each test, a burnt mark flaw map and count summary being generated automatically.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to configure the PLC of Adams to correlate the marking on the sample to a spatial portion of the insulating material, as Adams already correlates a detected mark on the web to a mapped position using line speed from the PLC.
As to claim 5, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode comprises a tip being a metal ball rotatably arranged to the first electrode.
Adams discloses a rotatable first electrode (nipped conductive polymer rollers 18A / 18B) with a metal inner portion (“conductive rollers may be constructed with metal tubing as the inner portion of the roller and a conductive polymer coating on the outer surface of such metal tubing”).
Adams does not disclose a tip being a metal ball.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to form the contact end of Adams’ first electrode as a tip being a metal ball rotatably arranged to the first electrode, because Adams already uses a rotatable metal-based contact electrode against the moving insulating sample, and changing the contact geometry from a roller face to a rotatable ball is a substitution of one known rotatable contact for another.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Zhang (CN 107728026 A hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to claim 7, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the analysis device further comprises a device for measuring the thickness of the sample.
Adams does not disclose a device for measuring the thickness of the sample.
However, Zhang discloses: “measuring the thickness of the insulation sample wafer by using a thickness meter.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the device of Adams and implement a device for measuring the thickness of the sample, as taught by Zhang, to obtain breakdown field from breakdown voltage and thickness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Du (CN 108387789 A hereinafter “Du”).
As to claim 8, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the analysis device further comprises an electrical charging device.
Adams does not disclose an electrical charging device that loads charge onto the sample for SPD.
However, Du discloses: “the surface charge measurement experimental device used is mainly composed of three parts: a high voltage charging device, a potential measuring device and a heating device”; “The high-voltage charging device injects charges to the surface of the sample through corona discharge.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the device of Adams and implement an electrical charging device, as taught by Du, to charge the insulating sample for surface-charge measurement on the same line.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Zhang and further in view of Du.
As to claim 9, The analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the analysis device is configured to perform AC breakdown measurements, DC breakdown measurements and/or surface decay measurements.
Adams discloses DC hipot (“Test type DCW Voltage 1500 V”).
Adams does not disclose the device configured to perform AC breakdown measurements and surface decay measurements.
However, Zhang discloses: “applying voltage to the electrode by using a power frequency voltage device, carrying out an electrical breakdown test.”
Du discloses: “measure the surface potential decay curve for 5 minutes.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the device of Adams and configure the analysis device to perform AC breakdown measurements, DC breakdown measurements and/or surface decay measurements, as taught by Zhang and Du, to run the standard electrical tests on the same insulating web.
Claims 10-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107728026 A hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Adams.
As to claim 10, Zhang discloses in Fig. 1: A method of analysing electrical properties of an insulating material, wherein the method comprises the steps of
a) providing a sample of the insulating material (insulation sample wafer (8)) (“preparing an insulation sample wafer with a certain thickness on an insulation layer of the crosslinked polyethylene cable”);
b) introducing the sample into a sample releasing unit, attaching an end portion of the sample to a sample receiving unit, and arranging a portion of the sample between the first electrode and the second electrode (driven wheel (63), driving wheel (62), first electrode (3), second electrode (4)) (“the first end of the insulation sample piece is wound on the driven wheel, the insulation sample piece sequentially and slidably penetrates through the first penetrating opening, the gap between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the second penetrating opening, and the second end of the insulation sample piece is wound on the driving wheel”);
c) applying a voltage to the first electrode (voltage generator (5); second electrode (4)) (“the second electrode is used to connect with the voltage generator”; “applying voltage to the electrode by using a power frequency voltage device, carrying out an electrical breakdown test on the insulating sample”);
d) detecting the voltage at which breakdown occurs in the area of the sample between the first electrode and the second electrode (“counting the breakdown voltage value of the insulating sample”; “when the position to be punctured of the insulating sample wafer is arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode”);
e) moving the sample by the drive unit (driving mechanism (61), driving wheel (62)) (“the driving mechanism is connected with the driving wheel and used for driving the driving wheel to rotate, driving the insulation sample wafer to slidably penetrate through a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode, and stopping driving the driving wheel to rotate when the position, to be punctured, of the insulation sample wafer is arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode”).
Zhang does not disclose: wherein the voltage increases over time; and wherein the control unit controls steps c) and e).
However, Adams discloses: wherein the voltage increases over time (“Ramp UP 0.1 s”);
wherein the control unit controls steps c) and e) (PLC) (“PLC (programmable logic controller) for integrating the winding machine with a touch screen HMI for operator interface, Hipot testers”; “When the machine is started, the Hipot tester(s) … may be activated automatically through the PLC”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhang and implement applying a voltage to the first electrode, wherein the voltage increases over time, and wherein the control unit controls steps c) and e), as taught by Adams, so one controller ramps the test voltage and indexes the film.
As to claim 11, The method according to claim 9, wherein step e) is not performed concurrently with step c) and step c) is not performed concurrently with step e).
Zhang discloses: “stopping driving the driving wheel to rotate when the position, to be punctured, of the insulation sample wafer is arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode”; “when the position to be broken down of the insulation sample is placed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the transmission of the insulation sample is stopped.”
As to claim 12, The method according to claim 9, wherein steps c) to e) are reiterated.
Zhang discloses: “automatic and continuous electrical breakdown test for each position to be broken down of the insulation sample in sequence.”
As to claim 13, The method according to claim 9, wherein step c) is performed by applying a voltage pattern.
Adams discloses a voltage pattern: “Ramp UP 0.1 s Dwell 999.9 s Ramp ON 0.0 s.”
Zhang does not disclose applying a voltage pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform step c) by applying a voltage pattern, as taught by Adams, on Zhang’s stopped sample.
As to claim 14, The method according to claim 9, wherein the method of analysing electrical properties comprises measuring AC breakdown or measuring DC breakdown.
Zhang discloses power-frequency (AC) breakdown (“power frequency voltage device”).
Adams discloses DC (“Test type DCW Voltage 1500 V”).
As to claim 15, The method according to claim 13, wherein the method of analysing electrical properties comprises measuring DC breakdown, wherein step e) is not performed concurrently with step c) and step c) is not performed concurrently with step e).
Adams discloses DCW. Zhang discloses stopping the drive during the breakdown test (quotes under claim 11).
As to claim 16, The method according to claim 13, wherein the method of analysing electrical properties comprises measuring AC breakdown, wherein step e) is at least temporarily performed concurrently with step c).
Zhang discloses AC (“power frequency voltage device”). Adams discloses voltage applied while the web moves (“as the web material to be tested moves along, it is essentially acting as an insulator between two conductive rollers”).
As to claim 17, The method according to claim 9, wherein prior to step a), the insulating material is provided with at least one marking being detectable on the sample (13), wherein the method comprises steps
f) detecting the at least one marking and thereby providing information on the lengthwise position of the at least one marking on the sample, and
g) by using the control unit and based on the information on the lengthwise position, calculating the spatial position of the area of measurement of the electrical property in the insulating material.
Zhang does not disclose at least one marking or steps f) and g).
However, Adams discloses (line scan camera 24A, 24B, PLC): “with input signals from said PLC detecting the line speed of the web passing through the tester, the optical inspection system can calculate and distinguish the defect burnt mark from other flaws”; “a burnt mark flaw map.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to add detecting the at least one marking and calculating the spatial position … by using the control unit, as taught by Adams, on Zhang’s indexed film.
As to claim 18, The method according to claim 9, wherein the method comprises a step h) of measuring the thickness of the sample.
Zhang discloses: “measuring the thickness of the insulation sample wafer by using a thickness meter.”
As to claim 19, The method according to claim 9, wherein the control unit stops the method when the drive unit has moved essentially the whole sample from the sample releasing unit to the sample receiving unit.
Zhang discloses running until each position on the film sample has been tested (“each position to be broken down of the insulation sample in sequence”). Adams discloses a finite web from unwind arbor 10 to rewind 28A, 28B under PLC control.
Zhang does not disclose that the control unit stops the method when the drive unit has moved essentially the whole sample.
It would have been obvious to have the PLC of Adams stop the method when the drive unit has moved essentially the whole sample from the sample releasing unit to the sample receiving unit, because both references run a finite length of insulating film from a payoff wheel to a take-up wheel.
As to claim 21, The method according to claim 10, wherein the step of providing a sample of the insulating material comprises the step of subjecting the insulating material to a peeling step to receive a peeling sample.
Zhang discloses providing the sample from the cable insulation layer: “preparing an insulation sample wafer with a certain thickness on an insulation layer of the crosslinked polyethylene cable”; “the insulation layer of the crosslinked polyethylene cable is usually sliced a plurality of times to obtain a plurality of insulation sample sheets.”
Zhang does not disclose a peeling step to receive a peeling sample.
Applicant’s specification at [0006] states that “Cutting peelings and thin parts from the full samples is thus preferred.” That is applicant-admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to perform subjecting the insulating material to a peeling step to receive a peeling sample as the way to obtain Zhang’s film-form insulation sample.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107728026 A hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Du (CN 108387789 A hereinafter “Du”).
As to claim 20, Zhang discloses in Fig. 1: A method of analysing the surface potential decay of an insulating material, wherein the method comprises the steps of
a) providing a sample of the insulating material (insulation sample wafer (8));
b) introducing the sample into a sample releasing unit and attaching an end portion of the sample to a sample receiving unit having a portion of the sample arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (driven wheel (63), driving wheel (62), first electrode (3), second electrode (4)) (same quote as claim 10, step b);
e) moving the sample by the drive unit (driving mechanism (61)) (same quote as claim 10, step e).
Zhang does not disclose: c) loading charge on the peeling sample by use of an electrical charging device, preferably a corona gun, a needle electrode or a contact charge roller; d) measuring the potential decay over time; and wherein the control unit controls steps c) and e).
However, Du discloses: c) loading charge … by use of an electrical charging device, preferably a corona gun, a needle electrode or a contact charge roller (“Select a stainless steel needle with a diameter of 1 mm … as the needle electrode of the high-voltage charging device”; “The high-voltage charging device injects charges to the surface of the sample through corona discharge”; “Apply a DC voltage to the needle electrode, cut off the voltage after 3 minutes”);
d) measuring the potential decay over time (“Quickly move the sample from under the needle electrode to directly under the surface potentiometer measuring probe through the slide rail, and measure the surface potential decay curve for 5 minutes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhang and implement loading charge on the peeling sample by use of an electrical charging device, preferably a corona gun, a needle electrode or a contact charge roller, and measuring the potential decay over time, wherein the control unit controls steps c) and e), as taught by Du, to measure surface-potential decay on the same cable-insulation film Zhang already moves through opposed electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/TUNG X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/4/26
Prosecution Insights