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 1, 4, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, last two lines, “the number of peaks” should be “the first number of peaks”. The analogous issue is present in claims 14 and 18.
In claim 4, “wherein” should be inserted after the comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for measuring a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test in the form of a metal cable or wire over a first predetermined frequency range comprising frequencies between 40 MHz to 1 GHz, counting a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range; and determining an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, with the indication of corrosion being proportional to the number of peaks, does not reasonably provide enablement for determining an indication of corrosion of any object/DUT using S-parameters measured at frequencies falling substantially outside of the 40 MHz to 1 GHz range. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 recites, among other things, “a scattering parameter manager to measure, with the measurement device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a first predetermined frequency range” has a scope that includes a frequency range of any size. Further, the scope of “object” and “device under test” incudes any object/device under test that may exhibit corrosion. The specification discloses in connection with Figs. 5-6 (see, e.g., paragraphs 48-49) a frequency range from about 9 kHz to about 3 GHz that includes a low range 502 from about 9 kHz to about 40 MHz, a middle range 504 from about 40 MHz to about 1 GHz, and a high range 506 from about 1 GHz to about 3 GHz or above, with the middle range 504 being further subdivided into subrange 508 from about 40 MHz to about 100 MHZ, a subrange 510 from about 100 MHz to about 500 MHz, and a subrange 512 from about 500 MHz to about 1 GHz. For the frequency range from about 9 kHz to about 3 GHz, the specification discloses in paragraph 49 that in the low range 502, the signal 602 does not include any peaks, and thus may not be sufficiently sensitive to effects of corrosion, and In the high range 506, the signal 602 includes too many peaks, and thus may be difficult to use to obtain reliable measurements. The examiner notes that U.S. Provisional Application 63/565,164 to which priority is claimed and which is incorporated by reference into the present application similarly discloses the difficulty of using frequencies substantially outside of the 40 MHz to 1 GHz range for determining the extent of corrosion (see, e.g., page 6, section 4.7 entitled Peak Analysis, “However, 9-kHz-40MHz contained very few peaks and 1 Ghz-3GHz contains too many peaks.”) Further, the examiner notes that the disclosure in connection with Figs. 5-6 relates to DUTs in the form or wires/cables. The specification does not appear to discuss or contemplate applicability of the disclosed systems and methods to DUTs other than wires/cables. The scope of claim 1, e.g., “a first predetermined frequency range” having a scope that includes a frequency range of any size, is therefore considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure. Likewise, the recitations of “object” and “device under test” have a scope that includes any object/DUT that may exhibit corrosion, and are therefore considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure.
The question of whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation is now considered in light of so-called Wands factors. See MPEP 2164.01(a). The nature of the invention is drawn to quantifying corrosion in a device under test by analyzing scattering parameters measured over a predetermined frequency range. Although levels of ordinary skill and predictability in field of corrosion monitoring are considered to be generally high, the scope of claim 1 is considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure at least because the claim encompasses determining an indication of corrosion in the device under test using scattering parameters measured over a predetermined frequency range of any size. At the time of the application was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been generally aware of the usefulness of S-parameter measurements for quantifying corrosion in tested objects using a VNA. See, e.g., CN 113625200 A to Zhang et al., page 5 of machine translation, last paragraph. Although the present specification provides direction and guidance as to how a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test measured over a first predetermined frequency range comprising frequencies between 40 MHz to 1 GHz can be analyzed to determine an indication of corrosion in wires/cables, the specification is not understood to provide any direction or guidance regarding how S-parameters measured at frequencies falling substantially outside of a 40 MHz to 1 GHz range can be used to make such a determination. To the contrary, the specification discloses that the absence and/or lack of peaks in the range of 9-kHz-40MHz and the presence of too many peaks in the range of 1 Ghz-3GHz frustrates the determination of corrosion indicators for these frequency ranges. Similarly, even for frequencies between 40 MHz to 1 GHz, the specification is not understood to provide any direction or guidance regarding the applicability of this frequency range for indicating corrosion in objects/DUTs other than wires/cables. Weighing the above-identified factors, particularly the breadth of the claim with respect to the disclosure and the amount of direction and guidance provided, the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art could only make the entire scope of the claimed invention by resorting to undue experimentation. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claim. Because none of dependent claims 2-13 appear to address both of the deficiencies noted above, claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Independent claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1. Because none of claims 15-17 depending from claim 14 and claims 19-20 depending from claim 18 appear to address both of the deficiencies, claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claims 14 and 18.
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 6-7, 11-12 and 14-20 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.
In claims 6-7, the limiting effect of the parenthetical terms is not clear. The parentheses should be removed, or the parenthetical terms should be removed.
Claim 11 presently depends from claim 1, but appears to relate to subject matter recited in claim 10. For purposes of the present examination the examiner presumes that claim 11 was intended to depend from claim 10. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim 12 recites “wherein to determine the indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks comprises to compare the first number of peaks to an initial number of peaks measured for the device under test”. It appears that claim 12 requires a preliminary step of measuring/acquiring the initial number of peaks, but it is unclear from the claim how or under what conditions the initial number of peaks are to be obtained. For example, are the initial number of peaks obtained in the same manner as the first number of peaks immediately before the obtaining the first number of peaks, or at some other point in time under different conditions? Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim 14 recites, in part, “measuring, by a computing device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that the computing device, without more, performs the measuring of the plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test. Regarding the meaning of the term “computing device”, the specification discloses in connection with Fig. 1 that “the computing device 102 may be embodied as, without limitation, a workstation, a server computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a network appliance, a web appliance, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a consumer electronic device, a distributed computing system, a multiprocessor system, and/or any other computing device capable of performing the functions described herein”. The term “computing device”, interpreted in light of the specification, therefore has a scope that includes devices such as a workstation, a server computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a network appliance, a web appliance, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a consumer electronic device, a distributed computing system, a multiprocessor system. However, it is unclear from the specification how such devices, e.g., a smartphone, without more, can perform the function of measuring a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range. The recited functionality does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the functionality requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the computing device. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. The analogous issue is present in claim 18, which is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions that cause a computer device to “measure a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range”. Claims 15-17 and claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claims 14 and 18, respectively.
Claim 15 depends directly from claim 14 and recites “The method of claim 14, further comprising connecting the object in situ to a measurement device, wherein measuring the plurality of S-parameter values comprises measuring the plurality of S-parameter values with the measurement device.” Claim 15 provides that the measuring of the plurality of S-parameter values includes measuring the plurality of S-parameter values using the measurement device. Claim 14, on the other hand, recites “measuring, by a computing device, a plurality of S-parameter values”. Claim 15 therefore appears to be inconsistent with claim 14 because claim 15 specifies a different device to perform S-parameter measurements. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In particular, analyzing these claims under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claim 1 recites:
A system for nondestructively detecting corrosion of an object, the system comprising:
a measurement device; and
a computing device coupled to the measurement device, wherein the computing device comprises:
a scattering parameter manager to measure, with the measurement device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object;
a peak counter to count a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range; and
a corrosion modeler to determine an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system for nondestructively detecting corrosion of an object and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitations of claim 1 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts. In particular:
The language “count a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The language “determine an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 1 further recites “a measurement device” and “a scattering parameter manager to measure, with the measurement device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object”. Considered as additional elements for purposes of the 101 analysis, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and only functionally defined such that their scope includes generic circuits/tools for obtaining a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range. These additional elements do not appear to apply the abstract ideas discussed above and merely operate to provide data to be used in connection with the abstract ideas. These additional elements, considered alone or in combination, therefore constitute no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) that is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Claim 1 further recites “a computing device coupled to the measurement device” that comprises the scattering parameter manager, a peak counter that implements the count functionality and a corrosion modeler that implements the determine an indication of corrosion functionality. This additional element appears to have a scope that includes a computer/processor programmed to perform data gathering and application of the abstract ideas to the gathered data. The examiner notes that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This additional element therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, this additional element, considered in combination with the other additional elements discussed above, does not appear to add anything that is not already present when the additional elements are considered individually. Rather, the computing device merely acquires S-parameter data from a generic measurement device and applies the abstract ideas the S-parameter data to generate a new form of data.
Step 2B:
The additional elements of “a measurement device”, “a scattering parameter manager to measure, with the measurement device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object” and “a computing device coupled to the measurement device”, considered alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract ideas for the same reasons discussed above in Step 2A, prong 2.
Each of dependent claims 2-13 appears to further elaborate on the abstract
ideas identified above in connection with claim 1, recite additional abstract ideas in the
form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen and
paper, recite additional abstract ideas in the form mathematical calculation, and/or recite apparatus/structure (e.g., metallic cable or wire) on which the method operates rather integral use of an apparatus/structure to achieve performance of the method. None of dependent claims 2-13 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 13-14 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 recites:
A method for nondestructively detecting corrosion of an object, the method comprising:
measuring, by a computing device, a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object;
counting, by the computing device, a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range; and determining, by the computing device, an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks.
Step 1:
Claim 14 is directed to a method for nondestructively detecting corrosion of an object and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (process).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitations of claim 14 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts. In particular:
The language “counting … a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The language “determining … an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 14 further recites “measuring … a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object”. Considered as an additional element for purposes of the 101 analysis, this element is recited at a high level of generality and does not appear to apply the abstract ideas discussed above and merely operates to provide data to be used in connection with the abstract ideas. This additional element therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) that is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Claim 14 further recites “a computing device” for implementing the measuring, counting and determining functionalities. The examiner notes that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This additional element therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, this additional element, considered in combination with the other additional element discussed above, does not appear to add anything that is not already present when the additional elements are considered individually. Rather, the computing device merely acquires S-parameter data and applies the abstract ideas to the S-parameter data to generate a new form of data.
Step 2B:
The additional elements of ““measuring … a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range, wherein the device under test comprises the object” and “a computing device” for implementing the measuring, counting and determining functionalities, considered alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract ideas for the same reasons discussed above in Step 2A, prong 2.
Each of dependent claims 15-17 appears to further elaborate on the abstract
ideas identified above in connection with claim 14, recite additional abstract ideas in the
form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen and
paper and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 15-17 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 15-17 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 recites:
One or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions that in response to being executed cause a computer device to:
measure a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range;
count a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range; and
determine an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks.
Step 1:
Claim 18 is directed to one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media comprising a plurality of computer-executable instructions and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitations of claim 18 set forth above relate to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts. In particular:
The language “count a first number of peaks in the plurality of S-parameter values over the first predetermined frequency range” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The language “determine an indication of corrosion of the device under test based on the first number of peaks, wherein the indication of corrosion is proportional to the number of peaks” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Additionally, or in the alternative, this language has a scope that includes mathematical calculation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 18 further recites “measure a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range”. Considered as an additional element for purposes of the 101 analysis, this element is recited at a high level of generality and does not appear to apply the abstract ideas discussed above and merely operates to provide data to be used in connection with the abstract ideas. This additional element therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) that is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Claim 18 further recites “one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions that in response to being executed cause a computer device to” implement the measure, count and determine functionalities. The examiner notes that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). This additional element therefore does not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, this additional element, considered in combination with the other additional element discussed above, does not appear to add anything that is not already present when the additional elements are considered individually. Rather, the computer device, responsive to executing the instructions, merely acquires S-parameter data and applies the abstract ideas to the S-parameter data to generate a new form of data.
Step 2B:
The additional elements of “measure a plurality of S-parameter values for a device under test over a first predetermined frequency range” and “one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions that in response to being executed cause a computer device to” implement the measure, count and determine functionalities, considered alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract ideas for the same reasons discussed above in Step 2A, prong 2.
Each of dependent claims 19-20 appears to further elaborate on the abstract
ideas identified above in connection with claim 18, recite additional abstract ideas in the
form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind or with pen and
paper and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 19-20 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 19-20 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 scattering parameter manager” and “a corrosion modeler” in claim 1.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN113625200A to Zhang et al. relates to a method and a device for detecting and locating performance degradation of coaxial connector based on scattering parameter, belonging to the technical field of cable fault detection.
US 10,620,115 to Shehri et al. relates to a system and process for inspecting insulated equipment for corrosion under insulation; see, e.g., col. 7, lines 18-43.
US 10,209,175 to Goodwin et al. relates to detection of corrosion utilizing sensors embedded in a material such a coating applied to an object susceptible to corrosion; see, e.g., col. 7, line 55 to col. 6, line 14.
US 2004/0245995 to Williams relates to a method that includes determining a time delay associated with a defective CPD-creating element by using signals that are already being transported on the cable system. The time delay may be used to compute a round-trip distance using the known velocity of propagation. Knowing a distance to the CPD-creating element allows the defective device to be identified from a network map that shows distances; see, e.g., paragraph 38.
Amoah et al., Microwave Monitoring of Atmospheric Corrosion of Interconnects, ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology, Volume 7, Number 12, 2018, relates to characterization of heat-induced atmospheric corrosion of metal interconnects due to the failure of the encapsulating material; see, e.g., page 2, col. 1, heat induces changes in the electrical and physical properties of an interconnect, such as resistivity change due to crystallographic structural changes,15 oxidation, and void formation; such alterations result in changes in the device's impedance that are easily monitored with the insertion losses extracted from scattering parameters (S12 or S21) of broadband microwave spectrum.
M. Krüger, T. Eckert, N. F. Nissen and H. Reichl, "Non-destructive electrical measurement of interconnect degradation in early states by the use of RF signals," 2009 11th Electronics Packaging Technology Conference, Singapore, 2009, pp. 807-811, relates to electrical measurement of interconnect degradation in micrometer scale (see, e.g., Abstract). For this approach the changes in a RF measurement signal under artificial interconnect aging conditions are used. Therefore, scattering parameters (S-parameters) are measured and evaluated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights