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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, & 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gustafsson et al (PGPub 2025/0389674)(Gustafsson).
Regarding Claims 1 & 16-18, Gustafsson discloses a system for surface analysis of a cable layer of a cable for power transmission (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 26 & 27), the system comprising:
an in-line surface scanner arrangement (1) for scanning a cable layer (17) in or received from a cable manufacturing line, the scanner arrangement comprising one or more non-contact distance scanners (3, Paragraph 27) arranged to measure distance to an outer surface of the received cable layer thereby providing scan data; and
a controller (5) arranged to:
receive the scan data of the outer surface of the received cable layer based on signals received from the in-line surface scanner arrangement (Paragraphs 40 & 42);
extract surface texture data from the scan data (Paragraph 44). A 3D model of the surface would be texture data;
determine one or more properties of the surface of the cable layer based on the surface texture data (Paragraph 45);
compare at least one determined property with one or more threshold criteria (Paragraph 45); and
identify at least one of a surface feature of interest, a deviation, or a defect based on the comparison (Paragraphs 45 & 46).
The methods of claims 16-18 are also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claim 4, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the outer surface of the cable layer comprises a plurality of individual strands (13a & 15a, Paragraph 33); and
wherein the one or more properties that the controller is arranged to determine, based on the surface texture data, comprise:
at least one property of one or more of the individual wire strands (Paragraphs 39 & 45); and / or at least one property of inter-strand gaps between adjacent strands.
Regarding Claim 5, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the one or more properties that the controller is arranged to determine, based on the surface texture data, comprise: at least one property of a weld line (11c, Paragraphs 35, 38, & 39); and / or a pitch of the cable layer.
Regarding Claim 6, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses a non-transitory memory (7, Paragraphs 28 & 31);
Further, the limitation, “wherein the controller is arranged to store scan data associated with a determined deviation or defect in response to detection of a feature of interest,” is met because the apparatus is capable of this functional language since the controller is connected to the memory and it is a basic function to save data to a storage medium.
Regarding Claim 7, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses further comprising a digital twin monitoring unit, wherein the digital twin monitoring unit is arranged to perform digital twin modelling of the cable layer based on at least some of the scan data and / or surface texture data to create a representation of the cable or cable layer (Paragraph 44). The 3D model is a digital twin.
Regarding Claim 8, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the system comprises one or more indicators, such as one or more visual or audible indictors, wherein the controller is arranged to control said one or more indicators to transmit an alert signal if a defect is detected (Paragraph 46).
Regarding Claim 9, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the in-line scanner arrangement is arranged such that the cable layer is receivable and guidable therethrough in a lengthwise manner (Paragraph 27). The scanner is movable in an axial direction of the cable and thus meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 10, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the one or more non-contact distance scanners are arranged such that a scanning area extends substantially around a circumference of the received cable layer (Paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 11, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the cable layer is the outermost layer of a partially manufactured cable (13a, 15a, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the system further comprises a cable manufacturing line for fabricating the cable layer (Paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 14, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the cable manufacturing line is one of a conductor stranding line, a tape lapping line, a metal screen welding line, a cabling line, an armoring line, and a lay-up line (Paragraph 38). This would be a description of a tape lapping line.
Regarding Claim 15, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the controller (5) is arranged to control the manufacturing line, and wherein, if the controller determines a defect in the cable, the controller is arranged to adjust a parameter of the manufacturing line in response to the detected defect (Paragraph 47).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson in view of Shalizi (Cosma Shalizi, Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Lecture 03, “Notes on Trends, Smoothing, and Detrending”, 8 and 10 September 2020) (Shalizi).
Regarding Claim 2, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein extracting surface texture data comprises processing the scan data by subtracting a primary surface from the scan data, wherein the primary surface is representative of the macro-geometric features of the cable layer;
However, Shalizi discloses a generalized version of this (Section 5, Detrend values and residuals);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gustafsson with wherein extracting surface texture data comprises processing the scan data by subtracting a primary surface from the scan data, wherein the primary surface is representative of the macro-geometric features of the cable layer because this is a process known as detrending and is used to pick out features that vary from the macro-trend of a surface and it would be obvious to use this method in order to get the surface texture since it would accurately provide the desired results.
Regarding Claim 3, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is arranged to fit a surface to at least some of the scan data using a surface fitting algorithm, the fitted surface being the primary surface;
However, Shalizi discloses wherein the controller is arranged to fit a surface to at least some of the scan data using a surface fitting algorithm, the fitted surface being the primary surface (Section 2.2.1.1 Curve-fitting using ordinary least square);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gustafsson with wherein the controller is arranged to fit a surface to at least some of the scan data using a surface fitting algorithm, the fitted surface being the primary surface because this is a known algorithm for deriving a shape of a surface from measured data and it would be obvious to try since it would provide a reasonably accurate result.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson.
Regarding Claim 12, Gustafsson discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gustafsson discloses wherein the controller is arranged to determine an ovality of the cable layer (Paragraph 45) and / or an off-centering of the cable layer with respect to the surface scanner arrangement. The roundness of a surface is a measure of ovality;
Gustafsson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is arranged to process the scan data to compensate for said ovality and / or off-centering;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gustafsson with wherein the controller is arranged to process the scan data to compensate for said ovality and / or off-centering because when fitting data to a measured surface it’s important to compensate for deviations from the expected shape such as ovality or the offset and thus improve the accuracy of the 3D model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 26, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights