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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 1/28/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 16,17,18 and 19 have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 20090059987) in view of Neal et al. (US 4140965) in view Wolbank (WO 2016029234 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (see Fig. 13 – steps 1300, 1305, 1310 are fabrication of device steps).
Walker et al. teaches testing of the device (see Fig. 13 – step 1315) but Walker et al. does not explicitly teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more;
sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; and
identifying the electronic device as passing an isolation test; in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold
Neal teaches applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10),
sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 30-37 – socket 10 is connected to current detector 40 and current through tested element is monitored); and
identifying the electronic device as passing an isolation test in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold, (see col. 6, lines 31-40 – isolation test is considered “fail” upon the detection of threshold current. Isolation test is considered “pass” without there being a detection of the threshold current. In other words, the isolation test is considered as “passing” when the detected current is less than the threshold current).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Walker et al. to further include an isolation test as claimed including applying an AC test voltage to a terminal of the electronic device, sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the of the AC test voltage signal, and, identifying the electronic device as passing an isolation test in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold as taught by Neal in order to verify input/output isolation as taught by Neal (col. 1, lines 49-60).
Walker et al. in view of Neal teaches the AC test voltage having a frequency (see Neal Fig. 2 – AC voltage inherently has a signal), but Walker in view of Neal does not explicitly teach that the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 Hz or more.
Wolbank teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. ( [0037]
Fig. 6 shows a diagram of the amplitude spectrum of the measured phase current response resulting from the pulse sequence excitation of Fig. 4 (100 kHz);)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker et al. as modified by Neal to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
Regarding claim 2, Walker et al. teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (see Fig. 13 – steps 1300, 1305, 1310 are fabrication of device steps).
Walker et al. teaches testing of the device (see Fig. 13 – step 1315) but Walker does not explicitly teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having an amplitude of 1 kV RMS or more and 20 kV RMS or less and a test frequency of 1 kHz or more;
sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; and
identifying the electronic device as passing an isolation test in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold;
Neal teaches applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10),
sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 30-37 – socket 10 is connected to current detector 40 and current through tested element is monitored); and
identifying the electronic device as passing an isolation test in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold (see col. 6, lines 31-40 – isolation test is considered “fail” upon the detection of threshold current. Isolation test is considered “pass” without there being a detection of the threshold current. In other words, the isolation test is considered as “passing” when the detected current is less than the threshold current).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Walker et al. to further include an isolation test as claimed including applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage, and, identifying the electronic device as passing the isolation test in response to the current signal being less than a current threshold as taught by Neal in order to verify input/output isolation as taught by Neal (col. 1, lines 49-60).
Walker et al.in view of Neal does not explicitly teach that the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 1 kHz or more and 10 kHz although the test voltage signal of Neal would inherently have a frequency.
Wolbank teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. ([0037]
Fig. 6 shows a diagram of the amplitude spectrum of the measured phase current response resulting from the pulse sequence excitation of Fig. 4 (100 kHz);)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker et al. as modified by Neal to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
Walker et al. in view of Neal does not explicitly teach the AC test voltage having an amplitude of 1KV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less however an amplitude having RMS would be inherent to the AC signal of Neal. (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the AC test voltage signal frequency taught by Walker et al. as modified by Neal to be have an amplitude of 1 KV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to adjusting kV RMS,to match the supply voltage to the load’s rated voltage, ensuring maximum power transfer and minimizing losses.
Regarding claim 3, Walker et al. does not teach the test frequency is 1.5 kHz or more and 2.5 kHz or less; and the AC test voltage signal has an amplitude of 3 kV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less
Neal teaches applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device having a frequency and inherently having an amplitude RMS (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Walker to further include an isolation test as claimed including applying an AC test voltage and sensing a current signal as taught by Neal in order to verify input/output isolation as taught by Neal (col. 1, lines 49-60).
Walker et al. in view of Neal does not explicitly teach that the AC test voltage signal having a frequency is 1.5 kHz or more and 2.5 kHz or less and the AC test voltage signal has an amplitude of 3 kV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less however an amplitude having RMS and a frequency would be inherent to the AC signal of Neal (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10).
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the AC test voltage signal frequency taught by Walker et al. as modified by Neal to be the test frequency is 1.5 kHz or more and 2.5 kHz or less; and the AC test voltage signal has an amplitude of 3 kV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to accelerate functional verification and adjusting kV RMS,to match the supply voltage to the load’s rated voltage, ensuring maximum power transfer and minimizing losses.
Regarding claim 4, Walker does not teach wherein the AC test voltage signal is applied to the terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less.
Neal teaches wherein the AC test voltage signal is applied to the terminal of the electronic device for a duration. (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 31-33. High voltage from secondary winding of transformer 34 is applied on test subject in socket 10) However Neal is silent on AC test voltage signal is applied to the terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Walker et al. to further include an isolation test as claimed including applying an AC test voltage and sensing a current signal as taught by Neal in order to verify input/output isolation as taught by Neal (col. 1, lines 49-60).
Walker et al. in view of Neal is silent on AC test voltage signal is applied to the terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less, however the test voltage of Neal is inherently applied for a duration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the AC test voltage signal frequency taught by Neal to be applied to the terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to test during particular lengths of time of operation for identification to note how much the duration of the test signal impacts discharging.
Regarding claim 5, Walker does not teach wherein the AC test voltage is a sine wave.
Neal teaches wherein the AC test voltage is a sine wave. (Note Fig. 3A, column 3, lines 17)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker et al. to include the teaching of wherein the AC test voltage is a sine wave to show the amplitude of a variable changes with time.
Regarding claim 6, Walker et al. does not teach the AC test voltage is a square wave.
Neal teaches the AC test voltage is a square wave. (Note Fig. 3D)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Walker et al. to include the teaching of wherein the AC test voltage is a square wave to show transients for observations.
Regarding claim 7, Walker et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the AC test voltage signal is applied as a bipolar signal between the terminal and a second terminal of the device.
However Neal teaches wherein the AC test voltage signal is applied as a bipolar signal between the terminal and a second terminal of the device (AC signal in Fig. 3G is inherently a bipolar signal. Also see col. 1, lines 55-60 – invention tests both polarities of voltage levels. Also see column 2, lines 57-68 – high voltage is across the circuit element in socket 10, which is interpreted to be between first and second terminal. Also see col. 3, lines 18-20 – voltage applied across input and output terminals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Walker to further include the AC test voltage signal being applied as a bipolar signal between the terminal and a second terminal of the device as taught by Neal in order to test for polarity sensitive breakdown as taught by Neal (see col. 1, lines 35-48).
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140105769) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 2015075470) in view of Ikegami et al. (JP 2015114289A).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (wire winding) . (Note abstract)
Kim does not teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more;
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal;
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test
Kimura et al. teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; (Note ar. 0002, This insulation state determination device comprises a power supply unit (AC power supply 3) that applies voltage to a coil made of conductor wires, a detection unit (discharge charge amount detection unit 6) that detects the amount of discharge charge (hereinafter simply referred to as discharge charge amount) caused by the discharge between adjacent conductor wires due to the application of voltage from the power supply unit)
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; (Note par.0027, The partial discharge measuring instrument 6 of the insulation state determination device 1 is equipped with a power supply unit 11 (an AC power supply in this example) that applies voltage to the coil 3, and a detection unit 12 that detects the amount of discharge charge. ) and
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test (Note par. 0054, On the other hand, if the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset good/bad charge amount Ps, the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good. Incidentally, in the example shown in Figure 11, the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset pass/fail judgment charge amount Ps, so the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test to indicate the quality coating of the wire is sufficient. (Note Kimura et al. par. 0064)
Kim as modified by Kimura et al. does not teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more.
Ikegami et al. teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. (Note par. 0004 Furthermore, by closing the switch 22 and raising the frequency of the high-frequency AC power supply 41 to more than 10 kHz, a partial discharge test between turns can be performed.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (wire winding) . (Note abstract)
Kim does not teach applying an AC test voltage signal having an amplitude of 1 KV RMS or more or 5 KV RMS or less to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more ;measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold.
Kimura et al. teach applying an AC test voltage signal having an amplitude of 1 KV RMS or more or 5 KV RMS or less to a terminal of the electronic device , the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; (Note ar. 0002, This insulation state determination device comprises a power supply unit (AC power supply 3) that applies voltage to a coil made of conductor wires, a detection unit (discharge charge amount detection unit 6) that detects the amount of discharge charge (hereinafter simply referred to as discharge charge amount) caused by the discharge between adjacent conductor wires due to the application of voltage from the power supply unit)
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; (Note par.0027, The partial discharge measuring instrument 6 of the insulation state determination device 1 is equipped with a power supply unit 11 (an AC power supply in this example) that applies voltage to the coil 3, and a detection unit 12 that detects the amount of discharge charge. ) and
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test (Note par. 0054, On the other hand, if the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset good/bad charge amount Ps, the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good. Incidentally, in the example shown in Figure 11, the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset pass/fail judgment charge amount Ps, so the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test to indicate the quality coating of the wire is sufficient. (Note Kimura et al. par. 0064)
Kim as modified by Kimura et al. does not teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more or applying the signal for a duration of .01 seconds or more and .5 seconds or less.
Ikegami et al. teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. (Note par. 0004 Furthermore, by closing the switch 22 and raising the frequency of the high-frequency AC power supply 41 to more than 10 kHz, a partial discharge test between turns can be performed.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the AC test voltage signal frequency taught by Kim as modified by Kimura et al. to be have an amplitude of 1 KV RMS or more and 10 kV RMS or less since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to adjusting kV RMS,to match the supply voltage to the load’s rated voltage, ensuring maximum power transfer and minimizing losses.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (wire winding) . (Note abstract)
Kim does not teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more ;measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold.
Kimura et al. teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; (Note ar. 0002, This insulation state determination device comprises a power supply unit (AC power supply 3) that applies voltage to a coil made of conductor wires, a detection unit (discharge charge amount detection unit 6) that detects the amount of discharge charge (hereinafter simply referred to as discharge charge amount) caused by the discharge between adjacent conductor wires due to the application of voltage from the power supply unit)
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; (Note par.0027, The partial discharge measuring instrument 6 of the insulation state determination device 1 is equipped with a power supply unit 11 (an AC power supply in this example) that applies voltage to the coil 3, and a detection unit 12 that detects the amount of discharge charge. ) and
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test (Note par. 0054, On the other hand, if the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset good/bad charge amount Ps, the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good. Incidentally, in the example shown in Figure 11, the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset pass/fail judgment charge amount Ps, so the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test to indicate the quality coating of the wire is sufficient. (Note Kimura et al. par. 0064)
Kim as modified by Kimura et al. does not teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more or applying the signal for a duration of .01 seconds or more and .5 seconds or less.
Ikegami et al. teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. (Note par. 0004 Furthermore, by closing the switch 22 and raising the frequency of the high-frequency AC power supply 41 to more than 10 kHz, a partial discharge test between turns can be performed.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the AC test voltage signal frequency taught by Neal to applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device for a duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to note how much the duration of the test signal impacts discharging.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140105769) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 2015075470) in view of Ikegami et al. (JP 2015114289A) in view of Gundel et al. (US 20230020865) .
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a method comprising: fabricating the electronic device (wire winding) . (Note abstract)
Kim does not teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more;
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal;
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test;
sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; filtering the current signal to remove the test frequency content of the current signal to create a filtered signal; and utilizing the filtered signal to generate a partial discharge signal that represents the partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal;
Kimura et al. teach applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; (Note ar. 0002, This insulation state determination device comprises a power supply unit (AC power supply 3) that applies voltage to a coil made of conductor wires, a detection unit (discharge charge amount detection unit 6) that detects the amount of discharge charge (hereinafter simply referred to as discharge charge amount) caused by the discharge between adjacent conductor wires due to the application of voltage from the power supply unit)
measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; (Note par.0027, The partial discharge measuring instrument 6 of the insulation state determination device 1 is equipped with a power supply unit 11 (an AC power supply in this example) that applies voltage to the coil 3, and a detection unit 12 that detects the amount of discharge charge. ) and
identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test (Note par. 0054, On the other hand, if the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset good/bad charge amount Ps, the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good. Incidentally, in the example shown in Figure 11, the adjusted discharge charge amount Pt' is less than the preset pass/fail judgment charge amount Ps, so the insulation quality of the insulating coating is judged as good.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim et al. to include the teaching of applying an AC test voltage signal to a terminal of the electronic device, the AC test voltage signal having a test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test to indicate the quality coating of the wire is sufficient to minimize partial discharges. (Note Kimura et al. par. 0064)
Kim as modified by Kimura et al. does not teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more.
Ikegami et al. teach the AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more. (Note par. 0004 Furthermore, by closing the switch 22 and raising the frequency of the high-frequency AC power supply 41 to more than 10 kHz, a partial discharge test between turns can be performed.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of AC test voltage signal having a frequency of 100 HZ or more to accelerate functional verification.
Gundel et al. teach sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; filtering the current signal to remove the test frequency content of the current signal to create a filtered signal; and utilizing the filtered signal to generate a partial discharge signal that represents the partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; ([0005] In some examples herein, a power-line-monitoring system includes: a node having at least one sensor configured to capacitively couple to a shield layer of a cable of an electric power line, and further configured to collect, from the cable, sensor data indicative of an alternating-current (AC) electrical signal in the cable; a high-pass filter operatively coupled to the sensor and configured to filter out low-frequency signals from the sensor data; and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the high-pass filter and configured to detect, based on the filtered sensor data, a partial discharge (PD) event at a location on the cable that is local to the node.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the teaching of sensing a current signal of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; filtering the current signal to remove the test frequency content of the current signal to create a filtered signal; and utilizing the filtered signal to generate a partial discharge signal that represents the partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal to detect partial discharge events local to the node. (Note Gundel et al. par. 0005)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 and 20 are allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 8, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
after identifying the electronic device as passing the isolation test, applying a second AC test voltage signal to the terminal of the electronic device, the second AC test voltage signal having a second test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the second AC test voltage signal; and identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 8.
Regarding independent claim 15, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
after identifying the electronic device as passing the isolation test, applying a second AC test voltage signal to the terminal of the electronic device, the second AC test voltage signal having a second test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the second AC test voltage signal; and identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 15.
Regarding independent claim 20 , patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
the AC supply configured to, after the electronic device is identified as passing the isolation test, apply a second AC test voltage signal to the test terminal for a second duration of 0.01 seconds or more and 0.5 seconds or less, the second AC test voltage signal having a second test frequency of 100 Hz or more, and the second AC test voltage signal having an amplitude of 1 kV RMS or more and 5 kV RMS or less; the signal processing system configured to: measure a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the second AC test voltage signal; and in response to the discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold, identify the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 20
The pertinent prior art, taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, provided, and disposed, in the manner as claimed by the Applicants.
Prior Art:
Hermeling et al.(US 20140097854) teach In monitoring an isolation of an ungrounded power grid an AC voltage source is connected to the power grid via at least one test resistor. A test signal with a periodic continuous voltage course with regard to ground and with a frequency is applied to the power grid by means of the AC voltage source. A leakage current flowing due to the test signal is measured; and an ohmic isolation resistance is determined from the leakage current. The frequency of the test signal is varied such that an active current part of the leakage current keeps a predetermined recommended value at varying leakage capacitances of the power grid. This provides for a desired level of accuracy at maximum speed of isolation or ground fault detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15,17 and 20 are allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 8, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
after identifying the electronic device as passing the isolation test, applying a second AC test voltage signal to the terminal of the electronic device, the second AC test voltage signal having a second test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the second AC test voltage signal; and identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 8.
Regarding independent claim 15, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
after identifying the electronic device as passing the isolation test, applying a second AC test voltage signal to the terminal of the electronic device, the second AC test voltage signal having a second test frequency of 100 Hz or more; measuring a partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the second AC test voltage signal; and identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 15.
Regarding independent claim 17, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
filtering the current signal to remove the test frequency content of the current signal to create a filtered signal; and utilizing the filtered signal to generate a partial discharge signal that represents the partial discharge of the electronic device during application of the AC test voltage signal; and identifying the electronic device as passing a partial discharge test in response to the partial discharge being less than a partial discharge threshold as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 17.
The pertinent prior art, taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, provided, and disposed, in the manner as claimed by the Applicants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights