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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 01/28/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the
Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 does not include automated adjustments to protective settings, bounded regions as automated control inputs, or modifying time-current characteristics, pickup thresholds, coordination settings, or other protective parameters. The claim only recites “applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Tinsley (“A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction”, 01/31/2005) teaches using a TCC curve to show a range of possible arcing fault conditions and receiving parameter variations such as current from a sensor network. (Abstract & Section 1B) Table 1 also shows multiple parameter variations. They further show bounded regions in figures four and five that are based on current values over time. Therefore, Tinsley teaches deriving a bounded region of arc-flash. Tinsley is not used to teach adjusting protective settings to prevent arc-flash incidents by applying the bounded region. In the abstract of Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”), they discuss determining the setting of the overcurrent protective devices based on a reference incident energy boundary area. This is further encapsulated in Section IV where they describe selecting another OCPD depending on their analysis which would modify the parameters in the system. As discussed above, claim 1 is not limited to automated or algorithmic modification of protective settings.
Both Tinsley and Parsons teach derived incident energy boundaries as seen in Fig(s). 4 and 5 of Tinsley and Fig. 1 of Parsons. Tinsley does not explicitly teach adjusting protective settings to prevent arc-flash incidents by applying the bounded region, however as shown in the analysis above Parson’s does teach this feature. It would have been obvious to combine Tinsley and Parsons because Tinsley teaches using a TCC analysis to recommend system changes and that the system changes could reduce arc flash hazards. (Pg. 151 Col. 1 Ln(s). [11-14] & Pg. 148 section B) Furthermore, Parsons teaches that using boundary area plots helps account for parameter variation. (Section I Paragraph 3) Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply a derived bounded region to adjust protective settings in order to reduce arc flash hazards and to account for parameter variation. Applicants may argue that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning. However, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsley (“A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction”, 01/31/2005) as modified by Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”).
With respect to claim 1,
Tinsley teaches,
A computer-based method for estimating a level of incident energy or thermal arc-flash or arc-fault energy in a time-current curve or time-current characteristic plot, comprising: (Abstract teaches “the current method of calculation will allow them to quantify the incident energy (cal/cm/sup 2/) associated with a maximum three-phase fault condition.” Section 3B teaches “On a standard TCC, software packages could use a location-specific C-line to provide a visual representation for the severity of several incident energy calculations within the range of possible arcing fault conditions at a given location.”)
receiving a plurality of physical parameter variations from a sensor network in an electrical power system; (Section 1B teaches “The magnitude of the incident energy is calculated on the basis of the available fault current, the clearing time of associated system protection, and the physical parameters of the system location” And further teaches “The results of the arc flash calculations are based on the calculated values of fault current magnitudes found in the short-circuit study and the associated clearing times of overcurrent protection devices as determined by the coordination study.” Where those values would be sensed by sensors.)
and deriving a bounded region defined by all arc fault or arc-flash from the plurality of physical parameter variations. (Section 2C teaches “For a system location protected by a circuit breaker, the worst-case calculations vary with the regions of the clearing characteristic. When the considered range of fault current magnitudes falls completely within any region of the time–current curve (TCC) across which the time remains constant, the maximum available fault current will result in the calculation of the worst-case incident energy. Such regions include definite-time relays and definite-time delay regions of electronic trip unit characteristics (see Fig. 5). For regions of the TCC where the tripping characteristic is inverse or based on the I2t or I4t model, the lower arcing fault values will correspond to longer clearing times, resulting in the worst-case scenario (see Fig. 5).” Fig(s). 4 and 5 also show different bounded regions represented by filled in sections.)
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents.
Parsons (2019) teaches,
applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents. (Abstract teaches “A simplified arc-flash analysis technique that allows for determination of the settings of overcurrent protective devices or selection of arc-rated PPE based on a reference incident energy boundary area is presented in this paper.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tinsley with applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents such as that of Parsons (2019).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Tinsley, because according to Pg. 151 Col. 1 Ln(s). [11-14] of Tinsley “Following the determination of the worst-case scenario, system changes may be recommended or specified to reduce the incident energy potentially present at the substation bus.” Also, Pg. 148 section B teaches “To aid in overcurrent device coordination, the unique C-line will visually demonstrate which setting regions might be adjusted to reduce the arc flash hazard.” A reduction in the incident energy would reduce the likelihood of an arc-flash and keep personnel and equipment safe. Furthermore, Section 1 Para. [0003] of Parsons (2019) “Though constant energy lines are useful, changes to IEEE 1584-2018 mean that a simple line is no longer sufficient to characterize incident energy levels. IEEE 1584-2018 [1] adds several input variables to the arc-flash calculation model, and has enhanced the sensitivity of the incident energy calculations to the existing input parameters. Single-parameter set C-lines are inadequate to represent the potential variation in the physical electrical parameters of equipment such as low-voltage (LV) switchgear, MCCs, medium-voltage (MV) switchgear, etc. Power system parameters required for the incident energy calculation may vary significantly because of equipment design and operating conditions.”
With respect to claim 3,
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) teaches the computer-based method of claim 1.
Tinsley further teaches,
wherein the plurality of physical parameter variations comprises at least one of physical parameter variations in voltage, current, ambient temperature, air-density, distance between conductors, and dimensions of equipment. (Section 3 teaches that the incident energy is calculated using “Ia magnitude of the arcing fault current (kA) that may be determined according to IEEE Standard 1584-2002; (1), and G gap between conductors (mm);”)
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsley (A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction, 01/31/2005) as modified Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parsons (Simplified Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis Using Energy Boundary Curves, 11/18/2008).
With respect to claim 2,
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) teaches the computer-based method of claim 1.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value.
Parsons teaches,
wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value. (The conclusion teaches “When these constant-energy lines are selected to correspond to maximum arc-flash levels for various categories of PPE, then the lines define boundaries between regions on a time–current plot, which correspond to the PPE categories. These energy boundary curves can be used as a basis for a systematic simplified method for arc-flash hazard analysis.” Section 3 teaches categories which would be the reference constant energy value.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because according to the conclusion in Parsons “These energy boundary curves can be used as a basis for a systematic simplified method for arc-flash hazard analysis.”
With respect to claim 4,
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) teaches the computer-based method of claim 1.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
further comprising estimating at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations.
Parsons teaches,
further comprising estimating at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations. (Section 2 teaches equation 9 that calculates the duration of a fault.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) further comprising estimating at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because the duration of a fault is used to calculate the flash protection boundary distance as seen in Section 4D of Parsons “The IEEE 1584 provides an equation for the calculation of the flash-protection boundary distance for the empirically derived model that is based primarily on the normalized incident energy level and the duration of the arcing fault”
With respect to claim 5,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Parsons teach the computer-based method of claim 4.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the estimation further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region.
Parsons teaches,
wherein the estimating the level of incident energy or thermal arc-flash or arc-fault energy further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region. (Section 4D teaches “When an energy boundary analysis is performed, the maximum incident energy level at each bus is established, but exact values for the normalized incident energy and fault clearing time are not determined. However, the IEEE model can still be used to calculate a maximum flash-protection boundary distance corresponding to each PPE class. Since the exact arc-flash levels are not calculated with this procedure, choosing the flash-protection boundary distance based on the maximum incident energy level for each PPE category ensures a conservative result.” Since the exact values are not known it would be a probabilistic solution.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the estimating the level of incident energy or thermal arc-flash or arc-fault energy further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because as taught in Para. [0033] of Gutierrez (US 20120275071 A1) “In general, arc-fault testing is a matter of probabilities. If the circuit interrupter is programmed to detect a very high percentage of arc-faults, then it will also have a high probability of false tripping and nuisance tripping.”
With respect to claim 6,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Parsons teach the computer-based method of claim 5.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the probabilistic solution estimates combinations that are most likely to occur.
Parsons teaches,
wherein the probabilistic solution estimates combinations that are most likely to occur. (Section 4D teaches “When an energy boundary analysis is performed, the maximum incident energy level at each bus is established, but exact values for the normalized incident energy and fault clearing time are not determined. However, the IEEE model can still be used to calculate a maximum flash-protection boundary distance corresponding to each PPE class. Since the exact arc-flash levels are not calculated with this procedure, choosing the flash-protection boundary distance based on the maximum incident energy level for each PPE category ensures a conservative result.” Where the maximum energy level for each PPE would be the most likely to occur since it ensures a conservative result.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the probabilistic solution estimates combinations that are most likely to occur such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because as taught in Para. [0033] of Gutierrez (US 20120275071 A1) “In general, arc-fault testing is a matter of probabilities. If the circuit interrupter is programmed to detect a very high percentage of arc-faults, then it will also have a high probability of false tripping and nuisance tripping.”
Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsley (A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction, 01/31/2005) as modified by Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”) and Khozikov (US 20180313875 A1).
With respect to claim 7,
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) teaches the computer-based method of claim 1.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations.
Khozikov teaches,
wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations. (Fig. 6 step 604-612 a change in arc incident energy is used to determine an arc flash protection boundary.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations such as that of Khozikov.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because the parameter values will change over time so to keep the boundary accurate the method should keep track of these changes.
With respect to claim 9,
Tinsley teaches,
A system for estimating a level of incident energy or thermal arc-flash or arc-fault energy in a time-current curve or time-current characteristic plot, the system comprising: (Abstract teaches “the current method of calculation will allow them to quantify the incident energy (cal/cm/sup 2/) associated with a maximum three-phase fault condition.”)
wherein, when the computer-executable program instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor: receives a plurality of physical parameter variations from a sensor network in an electrical power system; (Section 3B teaches “On a standard TCC, software packages could use a location-specific C-line to provide a visual representation for the severity of several incident energy calculations within the range of possible arcing fault conditions at a given location.” So, there must be a processor to execute the software. Section 1B teaches “The magnitude of the incident energy is calculated on the basis of the available fault current, the clearing time of associated system protection, and the physical parameters of the system location.” And further teaches “The results of the arc flash calculations are based on the calculated values of fault current magnitudes found in the short-circuit study and the associated clearing times of overcurrent protection devices as determined by the coordination study.” Where those values would be sensed by sensors.)
and derives a bounded region defined by all arc fault or arc-flash from the input parameter variations. (Section 2C teaches “For a system location protected by a circuit breaker, the worst-case calculations vary with the regions of the clearing characteristic. When the considered range of fault current magnitudes falls completely within any region of the time–current curve (TCC) across which the time remains constant, the maximum available fault current will result in the calculation of the worst-case incident energy. Such regions include definite-time relays and definite-time delay regions of electronic trip unit characteristics (see Fig. 5). For regions of the TCC where the tripping characteristic is inverse or based on the I2t or I4t model, the lower arcing fault values will correspond to longer clearing times, resulting in the worst-case scenario (see Fig. 5).” Fig(s). 4 and 5 also show different bounded regions represented by filled in sections.)
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable program instructions; and applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents.
Parsons (2019) teaches,
applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents. Parsons (2019) teaches,
applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents. (Abstract teaches “A simplified arc-flash analysis technique that allows for determination of the settings of overcurrent protective devices or selection of arc-rated PPE based on a reference incident energy boundary area is presented in this paper.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tinsley with applying the derived bounded region to adjust protective settings of the electrical system to prevent arc-flash incidents such as that of Parsons (2019).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Tinsley, because according to Pg. 151 Col. 1 Ln(s). [11-14] of Tinsley “Following the determination of the worst-case scenario, system changes may be recommended or specified to reduce the incident energy potentially present at the substation bus.” Also, Pg. 148 section B teaches “To aid in overcurrent device coordination, the unique C-line will visually demonstrate which setting regions might be adjusted to reduce the arc flash hazard.” A reduction in the incident energy would reduce the likelihood of an arc-flash and keep personnel and equipment safe. Furthermore, Section 1 Para. [0003] of Parsons (2019) “Though constant energy lines are useful, changes to IEEE 1584-2018 mean that a simple line is no longer sufficient to characterize incident energy levels. IEEE 1584-2018 [1] adds several input variables to the arc-flash calculation model, and has enhanced the sensitivity of the incident energy calculations to the existing input parameters. Single-parameter set C-lines are inadequate to represent the potential variation in the physical electrical parameters of equipment such as low-voltage (LV) switchgear, MCCs, medium-voltage (MV) switchgear, etc. Power system parameters required for the incident energy calculation may vary significantly because of equipment design and operating conditions.”
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) does not explicitly teach,
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable program instructions;
Khozikov teaches,
at least one processor; (Para. [0010] teaches “According to various embodiments, a power safety determination system is provided comprising a processor and a test unit interface (TUI) operatively coupled to the processor,”)
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable program instructions; (Para. [0024] teaches “a non-transitory computer readable medium is provided comprising one or more programs configured for execution by a computer system to analyze arc flash hazard at an equipment of an electrical power system.”)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) with at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable program instructions such as that of Khozikov.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because using a processor and computer readable medium would increase the speed of calculations to define the bounded region compared to other methods.
With respect to claim 11,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov teach the system of claim 9.
Tinsley further teaches,
wherein the plurality of physical parameter variations comprises at least one of physical parameter variations in voltage, current, ambient temperature, air-density, distance between conductors, and dimensions of equipment. (Section 3 teaches that the incident energy is calculated using “Ia magnitude of the arcing fault current (kA) that may be determined according to IEEE Standard 1584-2002; (1), and G gap between conductors (mm);”)
With respect to claim 14,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov teach the system of claim 9.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations.
Khozikov teaches,
wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations. (Fig. 6 step 604-612 a change in arc incident energy is used to determine an arc flash protection boundary.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations such as that of Khozikov.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because the parameter values will change over time so to keep the boundary accurate the system should utilize these changes.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsley (A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction, 01/31/2005) as modified by Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”) and Khozikov (US 20180313875 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Parsons (Simplified Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis Using Energy Boundary Curves, 11/18/2008).
With respect to claim 10,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov teach the system of claim 9.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value.
Parsons teaches,
wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value. (The conclusion teaches “When these constant-energy lines are selected to correspond to maximum arc-flash levels for various categories of PPE, then the lines define boundaries between regions on a time–current plot, which correspond to the PPE categories. These energy boundary curves can be used as a basis for a systematic simplified method for arc-flash hazard analysis.” Section 3 teaches categories which would be the reference constant energy value.)
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 combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov wherein the bounded region represents combination of possible input parameter variations which cause an arc fault or arc-flash to release a reference constant energy value such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov, because according to the conclusion in Parsons “These energy boundary curves can be used as a basis for a systematic simplified method for arc-flash hazard analysis.”
With respect to claim 12,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov teach the system of claim 9.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the at least one processor further estimates at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations.
Parsons teaches,
wherein the at least one processor further estimates at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations. (Section 2 teaches equation 9 that calculates the duration of a fault.)
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 combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019) , and Khozikov further comprising estimating at least one of potential operating points of an arc fault, duration of a fault, limits of an expected arc current, arc resistance and arc voltage, required pickup settings of protective devices used to prevent damage to equipment or personnel, and variation in current and time if an arc occurs under different electrode/conduction configurations such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov, because the duration of a fault is used to calculate the flash protection boundary distance as seen in Section 4D of Parsons “The IEEE 1584 provides an equation for the calculation of the flash-protection boundary distance for the empirically derived model that is based primarily on the normalized incident energy level and the duration of the arcing fault”
With respect to claim 13,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), Khozikov, and Parsons teach the system of claim 12.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the estimation further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region.
Parsons further teaches,
wherein the estimation further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region. (Section 4D teaches “When an energy boundary analysis is performed, the maximum incident energy level at each bus is established, but exact values for the normalized incident energy and fault clearing time are not determined. However, the IEEE model can still be used to calculate a maximum flash-protection boundary distance corresponding to each PPE class. Since the exact arc-flash levels are not calculated with this procedure, choosing the flash-protection boundary distance based on the maximum incident energy level for each PPE category ensures a conservative result.” Since the exact values are not known it would be a probabilistic solution.)
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 combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov, wherein the estimation further includes a probabilistic solution within the bounded region such as that of Parsons.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov, because as taught in Para. [0033] of Gutierrez (US 20120275071 A1) “In general, arc-fault testing is a matter of probabilities. If the circuit interrupter is programmed to detect a very high percentage of arc-faults, then it will also have a high probability of false tripping and nuisance tripping.”
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsley (A practical approach to arc flash hazard analysis and reduction, 01/31/2005) as modified by Parsons (2019) (“Application of Incident Energy Reference Boundary Area Plots in TCCS Considering IEEE 1584-2018 Input Parameter Variability”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khozikov (US 20180313875 A1), and Jakupi (US 20180145497 A1).
With respect to claim 8,
The combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) teaches the computer-based method of claim 1.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand and the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations.
Khozikov teaches,
the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations. (Fig. 6 step 604-612 a change in arc incident energy is used to determine an arc flash protection boundary.)
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 combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019) wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations such as that of Khozikov.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Tinsley, because the parameter values will change over time so to keep the boundary accurate the method should keep track of these changes.
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov does not explicitly teach,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand.
Jakupi teaches,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand. (Para. [0003] teaches “The detection algorithm for a known breaker is paired in a single program with the multiple parameters stored as pre-computed look-up-table (LUT) values, necessary for determining the “signature” of an arc event. A complex arc event signature is defined by more parameters, which makes it easier to distinguish between different types of tripping events. Thus, more signatures will yield more and better discrimination of nuisance trip signatures versus real arcing event tripping.”)
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 combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand such as that of Jakupi.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Tinsley, because including more data will make the method more accurate as seen above in Para. [0003] of Jakupi.
With respect to claim 15,
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov teach the system of claim 9.
Tinsley does not explicitly teach,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand and the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations.
Khozikov further teaches,
the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations. (Fig. 6 step 604-612 a change in arc incident energy is used to determine an arc flash protection boundary.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tinsley wherein the bounded region is derived using an algorithm based on delta changes of the physical parameter variations such as that of Khozikov.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Tinsley and Parsons (2019), because the parameter values will change over time so to keep the boundary accurate the system should utilize these changes.
The combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov does not explicitly teach,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand.
Jakupi teaches,
wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand. (Para. [0003] teaches “The detection algorithm for a known breaker is paired in a single program with the multiple parameters stored as pre-computed look-up-table (LUT) values, necessary for determining the “signature” of an arc event. A complex arc event signature is defined by more parameters, which makes it easier to distinguish between different types of tripping events. Thus, more signatures will yield more and better discrimination of nuisance trip signatures versus real arcing event tripping.”)
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 combination of Tinsley, Parsons (2019), and Khozikov wherein the physical parameter variations number more than one thousand such as that of Jakupi.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Tinsley, because including more data will make the method more accurate as seen above in Para. [0003] of Jakupi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights