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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 14, “each may include” should begin a new sentence.
On page 1, lines 19-20, “for example requirements as defined, recommended, and informed by e.g. the IEEE/IEC 80005…” should read “for example requirements as defined, recommended and informed by the IEEE/IEC 80005…”.
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.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification.
The metes and bounds of claim 12 are not clearly defined because it is unclear whether the recited control module is required to be configured to perform each and every one of the listed operations in combination, or whether only one or some subset of the listed operations is required. In particular, the use of “and/or” creates ambiguity as to whether the control module must perform all preceding functions, or whether the control module may perform only one or more selected functions from the entire list.
Claim 12 is further indefinite because it is unclear what “sensor data output by the at least one sensor” is being used for each recited operation and which operation or operations are performed “based on” that sensor data. The phrase “based on sensor data output by the at least one sensor” appears at the end of the claim, but it is unclear whether it modifies only “generate a warning” or modifies all previously recited control-module functions, including switching operation modes, adjusting cable dispensing speed, adjusting movable biasing unit operation, adjusting crane arm elevation or rotation, adjusting cable management apparatus elevation or rotation, and performing an emergency stop.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed control module because the claim does not clearly identify which functions are required, which functions are optional, and which sensor data is used to perform which claimed control operation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 discloses the operation modes of the dispensing unit. This does not impose any further limitations on the dispensing unit given in Claim 1. As such, Claim 2 is considered non-limiting.
Claim 4 discloses the operation of a drive unit. This does not add any further structure or impose any further limitations on the drive unit given in Claim 3. As such, Claim 4 is considered non-limiting.
Claim 5 discloses an operation mode for the dispensing unit. This does not impose any further limitations on the movable biasing unit given in Claim 3. As such, Claim 5 is considered non-limiting.
Claim 6 discloses an operation mode for the dispensing unit. This does not impose any further limitations on the movable biasing unit given in Claim 3. As such, Claim 6 is considered non-limiting.
Claim 15 discloses a working environment for the cable management system. This does not impose any further limitations on the apparatus given in Claim 1. As such, Claim 15 is considered non-limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karl (U.S. Patent No. 4238981).
Regarding claim 1, Karl teaches a cable management apparatus for storing, dispensing and/or retracting an electrical cable (1), the apparatus comprising (Abstract):
a housing (6) to enclose the electrical cable (1), the housing (6) having a dispense opening defining a front end from which the electrical cable (1) is dispensed and a rear end opposite the front end (Column 3, lines 29-38; Fig. 1, elements 1, 6; annotated figure);
a cable dispensing unit (2) disposed proximal to the dispense opening, the cable dispensing unit (2) being configured to dispense the electrical cable (1) from the dispense opening in a first operation mode (Column 3, lines 29-31; Fig. 1, elements 1, 3);
and a movable biasing unit (4) disposed within the housing (6) to receive a portion of the electrical cable (1) and to apply a biasing force on the portion of the electrical cable (1) towards the rear end such that the electrical cable (1) is tensioned between the cable dispensing unit (2) and the movable biasing unit (4), the movable biasing unit (4) being configured to move along at least a portion of a length of the housing (6) to cooperatively dispense the electrical cable (1) with the cable dispensing unit (2) (Column 3, lines 39-44; Column 4, lines 41-44; Fig. 1, elements 1, 4, 6). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Karl teaches a cable device wherein the movable biasing unit (4) comprises a drive unit configured to generate and control the biasing force towards the rear end of the housing (6) (Column 2, lines 4-14; Column 7, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 4, Karl teaches a cable device wherein when the cable dispensing unit (2) is in the first operation mode, the drive unit is configured to reduce the biasing force towards the rear end of the housing (6) based on a dispense speed of the cable dispensing unit (2) to allow the movable biasing unit (4) to move towards the dispense opening, such that a predetermined tension in the electrical cable (1) is maintained while the cable dispensing unit (2) dispenses the electrical cable (1) (Column 2, lines 15-21; Column 3, lines 29-38).
Regarding claim 6, Karl teaches a cable device wherein the cable dispensing unit (2) is configured in a third operation mode to be static, and the drive unit is configured to maintain the biasing force towards the rear end of the housing (6) so as to maintain a predetermined tension in the electrical cable (1) for storage (Column 4, lines 5-17).
Regarding claim 7, Karl teaches a cable device with a rail (9) disposed within the housing (6) extending at least the portion of the length of the housing (6), wherein the drive unit is slidably coupled to the rail (9), as seen in the rejection for Claim 3 (Column 3, lines 48-52; Fig. 1, elements 4, 6, 9).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karl in view of Larkin (US 7901241).
Regarding claim 2, Karl fails to teach a retraction method. Larkin teaches a cable device wherein the cable dispensing unit (30) is configured in the first operation mode to dispense the electrical cable (34) by drawing a length of the electrical cable (34) out of the dispense opening, and in a second operation mode to retract the electrical cable (34) by drawing the length of electrical cable (34) into the housing (36) (Column 4, lines 18-21; Fig. 5, elements 36, 30, 34; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Larkin in Karl to facilitate the creation of a retraction method that can reduces the need to reconnect and sort cables as taught by Larkin (Column 1, lines 14-27; Column 2, lines 7-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
667
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Karl discloses the claimed invention except for a retraction method. Larkin teaches a cable device wherein the cable dispensing unit (30) is configured in a second operation mode to retract the electrical cable (34) by drawing the length of electrical cable (34) into the housing (36), and the drive unit is configured to increase the biasing force towards the rear end of the housing (36) based on a retract speed of the cable dispensing unit (30) when the cable dispensing unit (30) is in the second operation mode, such that a predetermined tension in the electrical cable (34) is maintained while the cable dispensing unit (30) retracts the electrical cable (34) (Column 6, lines 30-32; Fig. AA, elements 365, 34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Larkin in Karl to facilitate the creation of a retraction method that can control the tension within the cable as taught by Larkin (Column 6, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 9, Karl fails to teach a plurality of cable dispensing units. Larkin teaches a cable device with a plurality of cable dispensing units (30) and a plurality of movable biasing units (365), wherein each pair of cable dispensing unit (30) and movable sheave unit (365) is configured to cooperatively dispense and retract a corresponding electrical cable (34) (Column 3, lines 6-9; Column 4, lines 18-21; Column 6, lines 30-32; Fig. 1, elements 30, 30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Larkin in Karl to facilitate the creation of a plurality of cable dispensing units that can adequately maintain multiple cables as taught by Larkin (Column 1, lines 6-10, 28-34).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karl in view of Lissandre et al (FR 3067706).
Regarding claim 8, Karl fails to teach a sheave as part of the biasing unit. Lissandre et al teaches the movable biasing unit (6) is a sheave comprising a circular or semi-circular wheel having a grooved rim that receives the portion of the electrical cable (4) (Page 8, paragraph 2; Fig. 10, elements 6, 412, 422).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to of the invention to include the teachings of Lissandre et al in Karl to facilitate the creation of a sheave that can adjust the tension of the cable as taught by Lissandre et al (Page 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Karl fails to teach a crane. Lissandre et al teaches a cable management system for facilitating electrical power transmission to a marine vessel, the system comprising:
a crane (2) having a support base (21), the crane (2) comprising a crane arm (20) pivotally coupled to the support base (21), the crane arm (20) extending from a proximal end near the support base (21) to a distal end away from the support base (21), and a crane interface at the distal end of the crane arm (20) (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 1, elements 2, 3, 20, 21);
the cable management apparatus (3) that is pivotally coupled to the crane interface (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 1, elements 2, 3);
and at least one electrical cable (4) (Page 7, paragraph 3; Page 8, paragraph 1; Fig. 1, element 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lissandre et al in Karl to facilitate the creation of a cable management system that can increase the operational safety of the crane as taught by Lissandre (Page 3, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, Karl fails to teach a monitoring system. Lissandre et al teaches a cable management system featuring a monitoring system comprising at least one sensor (9), the at least one sensor (9) being configured to sense: a position of the crane (2), a position of the cable management apparatus (3), a mechanical force being exerted on the at least one electrical cable (4), a temperature of the at least one electrical cable (4), one or more obstructions near the crane (2), the cable management apparatus (3), and/or the at least one electrical cable (4) (Page 11, paragraphs 2, 3; Page 12, paragraph 1; Page 13, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lissandre et al in Karl to facilitate the creation of a monitoring system that allows the user to have a close view of the cable dispenser during operation as taught by Lissandre (Page 12, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, Karl fails to teach a control module. Lissandre et al teaches a cable management system wherein the monitoring system further comprises a control module (10) configured to: switch the cable dispensing unit (3) to the first operation mode, switch the cable dispensing unit (3) to a second operation mode, set or adjust a speed or rate the cable dispensing unit (3) dispenses the at least one electrical cable (4), set or adjust a speed or rate the movable biasing unit (6) retracts the at least one electrical cable (4), set or adjust an elevation and/or rotation of the crane arm (20), set or adjust an elevation and/or rotation of the cable management apparatus (3), perform an emergency stop on a movement of the crane arm (20) and/or the cable management apparatus (3), and/or generate a warning, based on sensor data output by the at least one sensor (9) (Page 3, paragraph 2; Page 8, paragraphs 1, 3; Page 10, paragraph 3; Page 11, paragraph 3; Page 12, paragraphs 1, 3; Page 13, paragraph 2; Page 14, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lissandre et al in Karl to facilitate the creation of a control module that can adjust the tension of the cable as taught by Lissandre (Page 3, paragraph 1; Page 12, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karl in view of Lissandre et al in further view of Larkin (US 7901241).
Regarding claim 13, Karl in view of Lissandre et al fails to teach a plurality of cables. Larkin further teaches a cable device wherein the at least one electrical cable (34) comprises a plurality of electrical cables, and the cable management apparatus comprises a corresponding plurality of cable dispensing units (30) and movable biasing unit pairs (365), wherein each cable dispensing unit (33) and movable biasing unit (365) pair is configured to cooperatively dispense or retract a corresponding electrical cable (34) of the plurality (Column 1, lines 6-9; Column 3, lines 41-48; Fig. 2A, elements 30, 33, 34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Larkin in Karl to facilitate the creation of a plurality of cables that can create multiple electrical connections as taught by Larkin (Column 1, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 14, Karl in view of Lissandre et al fails to teach a flexible cable. Larkin further teaches a cable device wherein the cable is flexible (Column 4, lines 32-36). Larkin does not disclose an electrical cable that is a low voltage flexible cable or a high voltage flexible cable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a low voltage or high voltage cable since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karl in view of Lissandre et al in further view of Elmbo (WO 2015004253).
Regarding claim 15, Karl in view of Lissandre discloses the claimed invention except for a marine vessel. Elmbo teaches a marine vessel (1) wherein the system is deployed in a non-hazardous area or partially in a hazard zone to facilitate electrical power transmission within the hazard zone, or when the marine vessel (1) is a liquid bulk vessel including a chemical tanker or a crude oil tanker ().
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Elmbo in combination with Lissandre et al and Karl to facilitate the creation of a marine vessel that can assist in laying underwater cables as taught by Elmbo (Page 4, paragraph 1; Page 5, paragraph 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights