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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first sensor having a direct view of the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler, and using a second sensor having an indirect view of the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler” of claim 22 and “a first sensor having a direct line of sight to the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler, and using a second sensor having an indirect line of site to the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler” of claim 23 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo in the limitation “the recording the time and date the time comprises”. A possible correction would read - - the recording the time and date comprises - - .
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo in the limitation “indirect line of site” in line 4. A possible correction would read - - indirect line of sight - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the limitations “directly monitoring” in line 6 of claims 1 and 25 and “indirectly monitoring” line 8 of claims 1 and 25 renders the claims unclear. The disclosure does not sufficiently guide the metes and bounds of what is required for a monitoring to be considered directly monitoring as opposed to indirectly monitoring. The figures use the same dotted line 56 to represent “direct and/or indirect line of sight” which does not distinguish between the two types of views at all. While the disclosure gives further examples, those examples are not imported into the claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. In the rejections below, the directly monitoring and indirectly monitoring are being interpreted as follows: the camera most directly pointed at the interface between the power bus and the power coupler is the “directly monitoring” and another camera that is pointed further away from the interface between the power bus and the power coupler is “indirectly monitoring”.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the limitations “an arc event” in line 1 of claims 1 and 25 and “an optical event” in line 4 of claims 1 and 25 renders the claims unclear. While the applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “optical event” refers to the detected optical signal or phenomenon, and the “arc event” refers to the physical occurrence of an electrical arc that is identified based on characteristics of that optical signal”, the claim limitation “determining the occurrence of an arc event based on characteristics of the optical event” is not considered to sufficiently distinguish the claimed optical event and the claimed arc event. Though the claim recites monitoring the electrical connection for the occurrence of an optical event, there is no recitation of measuring or otherwise gathering characteristics of the optical event. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-24 depend from claim 1 and inherit these issues therefrom.
Regarding claim 4, “the optical data” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Neither claim 4 nor claim 1 on which claim 4 depends introduce optical data. Therefore, “the optical data” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 2 does recite “obtaining optical data of the interface” but claim 4 does not depend from claim 2. A possible claim amendment would be to have claim 4 depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the filtering includes comparing a time required for the optical event to reach a maximum intensity (rise time), and concluding an arc event has not occurred when the time required to reach maximum intensity is greater than a predetermined time period” renders the claim unclear. It is not clear what the filtering compares “a time required for the optical event to reach a maximum intensity” is compared to. While the second part of the claim appears to intend the time required for the optical event to reach a maximum intensity to be compared to a predetermined time period, this is not clear from the claimed language and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. A possible claim amendment would read - - wherein the filtering includes comparing a time required for the optical event to reach a maximum intensity with a predetermined time period; and concluding an arc event has not occurred when the time to read the maximum intensity is greater than the predetermined time period - - . This is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein a first sensor of the plurality of sensors” renders the claim unclear. The plurality of sensors is only introduced in claim 3 on which claim 6 does not directly or indirectly depend. Therefore the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “wherein the recording the time and date the time comprises recording a time stamp representing an instantaneous time at which the arc event occurred” appears to either be missing a word or have typo in the form of additional words. As best understood from the disclosure, it is considered that a possible correction would read - - wherein the recording the time and date comprises recording a time stamp representing an instantaneous time at which the arc event occurred - - .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor module” (corresponding in the instant disclosure to sensor module 54) and “processing module” (corresponding in the instant disclosure to processing module 52) in claims 16-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200444401 Y1 (citations to the translation provided with the Office Action dated 04/07/2026).
Regarding claim 25, KR 200444401 Y1 teaches the method for detecting an arc event between a power bus (catenary wire 16) and a power coupler (current collector plate 14 of pantograph 12) of an electric vehicle (10; page 2, paragraphs 6-8), comprising:
monitoring an electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14) of the electric vehicle (10) for the occurrence of an optical event (page 3, paragraph 2), wherein monitoring includes
i) directly monitoring (by optical detector 20a) the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14; page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where the optical detector 20a has a centered view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on directly monitoring region B) and
ii) indirectly monitoring (by optical detector 20b) the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14; page 4, paragraph 8, page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where it is considered, that optical detector 20b has an offset view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on indirectly monitoring region B; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2); and
determining the occurrence of an arc event based on characteristics of the optical event (page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2).
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 1-3 and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR 200444401 Y1 (citations to the translation provided with the Office Action dated 04/07/2026) in view of TERFLOTH et al. (DE 102017217450 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KR 200444401 Y1 teaches a method for detecting a location of an arc event (page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2) between a power bus (catenary wire 16) and a power coupler (current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12) of an electric vehicle (10; page 2, paragraphs 6-8), comprising:
monitoring an electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14) of the electric vehicle for the occurrence of an optical event (page 3, paragraph 2) wherein monitoring includes
i) directly monitoring (by optical detector 20a) the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14; page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where the optical detector 20a has a centered view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on directly monitoring region B), and
ii) indirectly monitoring (by optical detector 20b) the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14; page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where it is considered, that optical detector 20b has an offset view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on indirectly monitoring region B; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2);
determining the occurrence of an arc event based on characteristics of the optical event (page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2).
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach upon determining the occurrence of an arc event, recording at least one of i) a time and date that the arc event occurred or ii) a position of the electric vehicle at the time the arc event occurred.
TERFLOTH teaches upon determining the occurrence of an arc event, recording a time and date that the arc event occurred (page 6, paragraphs 3-4 teach evaluation of arcs to determine as additional or alternative characteristics and all measured values determined here are also logged together with the time stamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify KR 200444401 to record the time and date of an arc event as taught by Terfloth because it is a predictable use of known techniques to improve event monitoring and enable subsequent evaluation and analysis of arc events.
Regarding claim 2, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein monitoring the electrical connection includes obtaining optical data of the interface (page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein monitoring the electrical connection includes obtaining optical data from a plurality of optical sensors (20a, 20b; page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1), wherein each optical sensor has a different field of view relative to other optical sensors of the plurality of optical sensors. (figure 2 and page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, the requirements of the claim are considered to be met since claim 1 was met in the alternative where the recording was of a time and date that the arc event occurred and the recording of a position of the electric vehicle at the time the arc event occurred is considered to be optional. Only that which is optional is claimed here, and therefore claim 12 does not recite any features which would define over KR 200444401 Y1 as modified.
Regarding claim 13, the requirements of the claim are considered to be met since claim 1 was met in the alternative where the recording was of a time and date that the arc event occurred and the recording of a position of the electric vehicle at the time the arc event occurred is considered to be optional. Only that which is optional is claimed here, and therefore claim 13 does not recite any features which would define over KR 200444401 Y1 as modified.
Regarding claim 14, the requirements of the claim are considered to be met since claim 1 was met in the alternative where the recording was of a time and date that the arc event occurred and the recording of a position of the electric vehicle at the time the arc event occurred is considered to be optional. Only that which is optional is claimed here, and therefore claim 14 does not recite any features which would define over KR 200444401 Y1 as modified.
Regarding claim 15, the requirements of the claim are considered to be met since claim 1 was met in the alternative where the recording was of a time and date that the arc event occurred and the recording of a position of the electric vehicle at the time the arc event occurred is considered to be optional. Only that which is optional is claimed here, and therefore claim 15 does not recite any features which would define over KR 200444401 Y1 as modified.
Regarding claim 16, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches a system for detecting a location of an arc event between an electric power bus (16) and a power coupler (14) of an electric vehicle (10) operatively coupled to the power bus (figure 2), comprising:
a sensor module (optical sensors 20a, 20b) including plurality of sensors (20a, 20b), configured to obtain optical data (page 3, paragraph 2); and
a processing module (signal processing unit 50) communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors module (20a, 20b; page 5, paragraph 4), the processing module including logic configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 17, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches where the plurality of sensors comprises an optical sensor (20a, 20b; page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 18, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the plurality of sensors (20a, 20b) comprises a plurality of optical sensors (20a, 20b; page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1), at least one of the optical sensors (20a) having a direct view (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where the optical detector 20a has a centered view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on directly monitoring region B) of an electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14), of the electric vehicle (10), and at least one other sensor having a partial or indirect view (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where it is considered, that optical detector 20b has an offset view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on indirectly monitoring region B; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2) of the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14) of the electric vehicle (10; page 4, paragraph 8-page 6, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 19, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches the electric vehicle (10; page 4, paragraph 8), comprising the system according to claim 16 (as noted in detail above for claim 16).
Regarding claim 20, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the electric vehicle (10), comprises one of a bus, train (page 2, paragraphs 6-7, page 3, paragraphs 3 and 8), or streetcar.
Regarding claim 21, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach wherein recording a time and date comprises recording a time stamp representing an instantaneous time at which the arc event occurred.
TERFLOTH teaches wherein recording a time and date the time comprises recording a time stamp representing an instantaneous time at which the arc event occurred (page 6, paragraphs 3-4, where the measurements of the arc are logged together with a time stamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify KR 200444401 to have a time stamp to record the time and date of an arc event as taught by Terfloth because it is a well known alternative to time and date to improve event monitoring and enable subsequent evaluation and analysis of arc events with predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein monitoring includes using a first sensor (20a) having a direct view (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where the optical detector 20a has a centered view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on directly monitoring region B) of the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14), and using a second sensor (20b) having an indirect view (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where it is considered, that optical detector 20b has an offset view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on indirectly monitoring region B; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2) of the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14).
Regarding claim 23, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein monitoring includes using a first sensor (20a) having a direct line of sight (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where the optical detector 20a has a centered view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on directly monitoring region B) to the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14), and using a second sensor (20b) having an indirect line of sight (page 4, paragraph 8-page 5, paragraph 1 and figure 2, where it is considered, that optical detector 20b has an offset view of the intersection between 14 and the left most wire of 16 and is considered, in accordance with the above interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection above, to read on indirectly monitoring region B; page 5, paragraph 4-page 6, paragraph 2) to the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14).
Regarding claim 24, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR 200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein indirectly monitoring the electrical connection between the power bus (16) and the power coupler (14), comprises measuring light generated by the arc after the generated light is reflected from a surface (figure 2 and page 5, paragraphs 2-6; where it is considered that the indirect monitoring by 20b is capable of capturing reflected light that enters the enclosure 30b and is intended to function to capture light from region B in the case that 20a fails).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200444401 Y1 and TERFLOTH et al. (DE 102017217450 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Land et al. (US 20070014060 A1).
Regarding claim 4, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except explicitly teaching wherein determining includes: filtering the optical data; and using the filtered data to detect the occurrence of the arc event.
Land et al. teaches wherein determining includes: filtering the optical data (paragraph [0061]; where the processing circuitry 102 receives the inputs from the detectors and then conditions and filters the data before performing threshold comparisons and validating conditions of a fault); and using the filtered data to detect the occurrence of the arc event (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify KR 200444401 Y1 to have wherein determining includes: filtering the optical data; and using the filtered data to detect the occurrence of the arc event as taught by Land et al. because it is a well known processing step to allow for cleaner analysis of a data set with predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 4, except wherein filtering includes comparing a duration of the optical event to a predetermined duration, and concluding an arc event has not occurred when the duration of the optical event is outside a predetermined time period.
However, Land teaches wherein filtering includes comparing a duration of the optical event to a predetermined duration, and concluding an arc event has not occurred when the duration of the optical event is outside a predetermined time period. (paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 200444401 Y1 to include wherein filtering includes comparing a duration of the optical event to a predetermined duration, and concluding an arc event has not occurred when the duration of the optical event is outside a predetermined time period as taught by Land in order to ensure the optical event is only identified as an arc event if it meets the typical presentation of arc events (paragraph [0007]) with predictable results.
Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 with respect to claims 1-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument on Page 7, paragraph 3 that “the drawings, when read in conjunction with the specification, already disclose and illustrate these features”, the drawings show a single element 56 which is described as “direct and/or indirect line of sight 56”. This is not sufficient to show the differences between the direct line of sight and the indirect line of sight. Therefore, the drawings do not show the claimed limitations of “a first sensor having a direct view of the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler, and using a second sensor having an indirect view of the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler” of claim 22 and “a first sensor having a direct line of site to the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler, and using a second sensor having an indirect line of site to the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler” of claim 23.
In response to the argument on page 9, paragraph 5 of that ““Directly monitoring” refers to monitoring via a sensor having a direct line of sight to the electrical connection, while “indirectly monitoring” refers to monitoring via a sensor that detects the arc through a secondary optical path, such as reflected light, or from a non-direct viewing position relative to the arc source”, it is considered that while the claims are read in light of the disclosure as originally filed, limitations are not imported from the specification into the claims. Therefore, it is considered that the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained.
In response to the argument on page 11, paragraph 3, that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “optical event” refers to the detected optical signal or phenomenon, and the “arc event” refers to the physical occurrence of an electrical arc that is identified based on characteristics of that optical signal”, the claim limitation “determining the occurrence of an arc event based on characteristics of the optical event” is not considered to sufficiently distinguish the claimed optical event and the claimed arc event. Though the claim recites monitoring the electrical connection for the occurrence of an optical event, there is no recitation of measuring or otherwise gathering characteristics of the optical event. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
In response to the argument on pages 17-18 that the claims connote sufficient structure to not be interpreted 112(f), the claimed language is a nonce word followed by a functional recitation without specific structure to perform those functions claimed and therefore the interpretation under 112(f) is considered to be appropriate.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that KR 200444401 Y1 does not teach both indirect and direct monitoring because “both sensors are directed toward the arc source and are configured to detect light emitted directly from the arc” on page 19 and there is no disclosure in KR 200444401 Y1 of a sensor that detects the arc indirectly via a secondary optical path, e.g. reflected light or detection from a non-viewing direction relative to the arc source on page 20) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As noted in the previous office action and the rejection above, it is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “directly monitoring” and “indirectly monitoring” is met by having different optical paths, one of which is more directly capturing the claimed electrical connection such that the camera most directly pointed at the interface between the power bus and the power coupler is the “directly monitoring” and another camera that is pointed further away from the interface between the power bus and the power coupler is “indirectly monitoring”. Therefore, it is considered that KR 200444401 Y1 teaches the claimed limitations as noted above.
In response to the argument on pages 21-22 that KR 200444401 Y1 does not teach direct and indirect monitoring of an arc location, it is considered that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the invention as claimed KR 20444401 Y1 does teach the claimed direct and indirect monitoring as detailed below. Therefore the combination is considered to read on all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
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 BRENT J ANDREWS whose telephone number is (571)272-6101. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-5pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/BRENT J ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
