Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NO20231296 and NO20240096, filed on 11/2/23 and 2/2/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/3/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Zhong-lin (CN 105424719) in view of Isaka, Muneharu (JP 02122238). (“Li” and “Isaka”, both provided in the IDS).
6. Regarding claim 1, Li teaches A method of performing an automatized quality check of a cable specimen, said method comprising: b) spooling the peeling sample onto a receiving roll, c) performing a measurement on a spot of the peeling sample, which spot is located on the peeling sample ahead the receiving roll, wherein the measurement comprises a non-destructive testing [Figures 1-4, a method of performing an automated quality check of a cable specimen 5 is taught, comprising unwinding the cable specimen 5, receiving the sample 5, performing a measurement on a spot of the sample 5 is shown, the measurement comprises a non-destructive testing, see marking device 4 and imaging device 8; see Abstract and Claim 1 for optical detection of cable].
Li does not explicitly teach a) peeling of at least a part of the cable specimen and forming a peeling sample.
However, Isaka teaches a) peeling of at least a part of the cable specimen and forming a peeling sample [Figure 1, peeling the sample using edge tool 3 is taught].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li with Isaka. Doing so would allow Li to comprise a peeling edge tool which would help improve the marking and testing of the cable specimen.
7. Regarding claim 2, Li teaches A method of performing an automatized quality check of a cable specimen, said method comprising: b) collecting the peeling sample on a collector roll, c) spooling the peeling sample from the collector roll onto a receiving roll, d) performing a measurement on a spot of the peeling sample, which spot being on the peeling sample between the collector roll and the receiving roll, wherein the measurement comprises a non-destructive testing [Figures 1-4, a method of performing an automated quality check of a cable specimen 5 is taught, comprising unwinding the cable specimen 5, collecting the sample 5, performing a measurement on a spot of the sample 5 is shown, the measurement comprises a non-destructive testing, see marking device 4 and imaging device 8; see Abstract and Claim 1 for optical detection of cable].
Li does not explicitly teach a) peeling of at least a part of the cable specimen and receiving a peeling sample.
However, Isaka teaches a) peeling of at least a part of the cable specimen and receiving a peeling sample [Figure 1, peeling the sample using edge tool 3 is taught].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li with Isaka. Doing so would allow Li to comprise a peeling edge tool which would help improve the marking and testing of the cable specimen.
8. Regarding claim 3, Li teaches wherein the method further comprises the steps of " before the step of peeling of at least the part of the cable specimen and forming the peeling sample, marking the cable specimen, " during the step of spooling, detecting the marking on a lengthwise position of the peeling sample, and/or " optionally measuring the thickness of the peeling sample, wherein preferably measuring the thickness of the peeling sample is performed by an ultrasound technique, a mechanical thickness gauging head, a caliper wheel or an optical technique [Figures 1-4, marking the cable specimen is taught, using optical detection is taught; see Abstract].
9. Regarding claim 4, Li teaches wherein the method further comprises, by making use of a control unit, correlating the marking on the lengthwise position of the peeling sample to a spatial portion of the cable specimen [Figures 1-4, correlating the marking on the lengthwise position of the same is taught; see Abstract, control unit is taught].
10. Regarding claim 5, Li teaches wherein the method further comprises e reiterating the step of performing the measurement on distinguishing spots of the peeling sample," collecting data resulting from the measurements on distinguishing spots of the peeling sample, and/or " optionally merging the collected data to shape a digital twin of the cable specimen [Figures 1-4, Abstract, Claim 1 teaches the step of performing the measurement on the sample 5].
11. Regarding claim 6, Li teaches wherein the cable specimen is a high voltage cable specimen [Figures 1-4, HV cable 5 is shown].
12. Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the method.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the peeling sample includes a thermoplastic material, an ethylene propylene rubber, or a material comprising a nanofiller.
However, Isaka teaches wherein the peeling sample includes a thermoplastic material, an ethylene propylene rubber, or a material comprising a nanofiller [Figure 1, Page 1, lines 1-3 teaches polyethylene material].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li with Isaka. Doing so would allow Li to comprise polyethylene material which is widely used plastic material in the field of art due to its high strength properties.
13. Regarding claim 8, Li teaches wherein prior to the non-destructive testing, the peeling sample is subjected to a chemical or physical treatment [Figures 1-4, the method is taught].
14. Regarding claim 9, Li teaches wherein the non-destructive testing comprises at least one of the following: an x-ray analysis; an optical measurement, selected from the group consisting of an optical defect inspection, an IR measurement in transmission, an IR measurement in reflection or a hyper spectral analysis; and a measurement of a mechanical property, including F5 strength [Figures 1-4, optical measurement is taught].
15. Regarding claim 10, Li teaches wherein the step of spooling is intermitted during the step of performing the measurement, or wherein the step of spooling is continued during the step of performing the measurement [Figures 1-4, the step of spooling is taught].
16. Regarding claim 11, Li teaches wherein the step of spooling stops when the whole peeling sample has been spooled from the collecting roll to the receiving roll [Figures 1-4, the step of spooling is taught].
17. Regarding claim 13, Li teaches wherein the control unit automatically generates a quality control report [Figures 1-4, control unit is taught].
18. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Isaka in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0328818). (“Zhang”),
19. Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the method.
Li and Isaka does not explicitly teach wherein the data is stored in a cloud.
Zhang teaches wherein the data is stored in a cloud [P(0171) teaches storing the data in cloud].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li and Isaka with Zhang. Doing so would allow Li and Isaka to store data in cloud which would help obtain easy access to the data.
20. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Isaka in further view of Lu, Ding-li (CN 118731056). (“Lu”),
21. Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the method.
Li and Isaka does not explicitly teach A digital twin of a cable specimen, which digital twin is obtained by a method of claim 5.
Zhang teaches A digital twin of a cable specimen, which digital twin is obtained by a method of claim 5 [Abstract teaches creating a digital twin of the cable].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li and Isaka with Lu. Doing so would allow Li and Isaka to improve quality detection system for cable by obtain digital twin.
22. Regarding claim 15, Li teaches the method.
Li and Isaka does not explicitly teach wherein a digital twin is formed of the cable specimen (10) to form a digital twin of the cable specimen (10) showing position and shape of any one of defects, particles, pollutants, organic contaminants, agglomerates, voids, degradation patterns, miscoloured areas, phase separated regions, thermoplastic moieties, aged regions, interfaces, or the like.
Zhang teaches wherein a digital twin is formed of the cable specimen (10) to form a digital twin of the cable specimen (10) showing position and shape of any one of defects, particles, pollutants, organic contaminants, agglomerates, voids, degradation patterns, miscoloured areas, phase separated regions, thermoplastic moieties, aged regions, interfaces, or the like [Abstract teaches creating a digital twin of the cable showing position and shape of the cable].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li and Isaka with Lu. Doing so would allow Li and Isaka to improve quality detection system for cable by obtain digital twin.
23. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Isaka in further view of Allen (US 10,345,096).
24. Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the method.
Li and Isaka does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical treatment includes a step of soaking a chemical substance including a dye, into the peeling sample, or a step of deposition of a chemical substance onto the surface of the peeling sample.
However, Allen teaches wherein the chemical treatment includes a step of soaking a chemical substance including a dye, into the peeling sample, or a step of deposition of a chemical substance onto the surface of the peeling sample [P(7-9) teaches chemical bath].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li and Isaka with Allen. Doing so would allow Li and Isaka to carry out chemical bath on the specimen in order to remove debris.
25. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Isaka in further view of Suenga et al. (US 2019/0013560). (“Suenga”).
26. Regarding claim 17, Li teaches the method.
Li and Isaka does not explicitly teach the physical treatment comprises the step of freezing the peeling sample or the step of drying the peeling sample.
However, Suenga teaches the physical treatment comprises the step of freezing the peeling sample or the step of drying the peeling sample [Abstract teaches physical treatment].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li and Isaka with Suenga. Doing so would allow Li and Isaka to carry out physical treatment (dry-ice) to improve specimen quality.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Botton (US 2017/0317566), Figure 4 shows unwinding, spooling, receiving wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights