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 .
Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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” as in 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” as in claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
Claims 18 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 appears to have a typo in the limitation “an electrical connection e”. A
possible correction would read - - an electrical connection.
Claim 23 is objected to for having a typo in “line of site”, lines 2 and 4. A possible
correction would read - - 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 limitation “directly monitoring” and “indirectly monitoring” (in lines 6 & of claim 1; in lines 6 and 8 of claim 25) renders the claims unclear.
It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “directly monitoring” and “indirectly monitoring” because it is unclear where the line is between the direct and indirect. There is no disclosure of the locations of the sensors to allow the direct or indirect view. The figures use 56 to represent direct and/or indirect views, however the one example given shows both the direct and indirect views having the same location. It is unclear if the indirectly monitoring must also have a view of the electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler or if the indirect view also includes possible reflections.
While the Applicant argues that the indirect monitoring of the electrical connection is “via a secondary optical path distinct from direct viewing”, however this is not claimed and the disclosure does not illustrate this interpretation or give reasonable notification that these are the intended metes and bounds of the claimed indirectly monitoring and does not give any guidance on how distinct the secondary optical path must be in order to not infringe on the directly monitoring optical path. Indeed, the claims do not even require optical paths for the monitoring. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
For examining purposes 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 recites the limitation “arc event” and “optical event” (in lines 4 & 10 of claim 1, in lines 4 and 10 of claim 25) renders the claims unclear.
Further, it is unclear how the arc event can be determined because the optical event has not been defined or identified. In point of fact, the monitoring being optical monitoring has also not been established in the claimed language. What is the difference between the arc event and the optical event? It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the optical event are or what characteristics of the optical event are. Therefore, it is unclear how the arc event is determined from these characteristics. Therefore, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the optical event and the arc event are based on the claimed language.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, the limitation “wherein monitoring includes” (lines 4-5) lacks antecedent basis because a monitoring step has already been introduced in line 3 and as best understood this recitation of monitoring is intended to reference back to the monitoring already introduced and not to introduce a new step. A possible correction would read - - wherein the monitoring includes - -.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitation “wherein monitoring the electrical connection” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Similarly to claim 1, a possible correction for each of these would read - - wherein the monitoring the electrical connection - -.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein each optical sensor has a different field of view relative to other optical sensors of the plurality of sensors” renders the claim unclear because it appears to contradict the disclosure because it appears to require there to be at least three sensors included in the plurality of sensors and the disclosure appears to allow the use of only two sensors. A possible correction would read - - wherein each optical sensor of the plurality of sensors has a different field of view from each other - - . This is the interpretation that will be used in the following rejections.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation is rendered unclear by “wherein determining includes”. Similarly, to claims 1-3, this renders the claims unclear because it is not clear that the previously recited determining step is being referenced again here. A possible claim correction would read - - wherein the determining - - .
In addition, “the optical data” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. There is no requirement for optical sensors or detection, and therefore the recitations of “the optical data” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11, the limitation “wherein filtering” renders the claim unclear. Similarly to claim 4, a possible claim correction would read - -wherein the filtering- -.
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. Further claim 6 appears to require at least three sensors from the recitation of “a first sensor of the plurality of sensors” and “other sensors of the plurality of sensors” which appears to contradict the disclosure because it appears to require there to be at least three sensors included in the plurality of sensors and the disclosure appears to allow the use of only two sensors.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the limitation “and filtering” (lines 3-4 of claims 6 and 9) renders claim unclear. Similarly to claim 4, a possible claim correction - - and the filtering - -.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-15, the limitation “wherein recording a position of the electric vehicle” because recording a position of the vehicle has been established in claim 1. These are believed to be the same recording step. Therefore, a possible claim correction would read - - wherein the recording the position of the electric vehicle - -.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein recording coordinates” because recording coordinates has been established in claim 12 and these are believed to reference the same recording step. Therefore a possible claim correction would read - - wherein the recording coordinates - -.
Regarding claim 16, is rendered unclear by the limitation “the plurality of sensors module” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 16 has established a sensor module and a plurality of sensors. A possible claim amendment would read - - the sensor module - -.
Regarding claim 19, is rendered unclear by the limitation “the system according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is directed to a method and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 19 may have been intended to depend from claim 16. This is the interpretation that will be used herein.
Regarding claim 21, is rendered unclear because of the limitation “wherein recording a time and date the time comprises”. Claim 1 introduces recording a time and date. Therefore, this recording is considered to reference back to the previously introduced recording. A possible correction would read - - wherein the recording the time and date comprises - -.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, are rendered unclear because of the limitation “wherein monitoring”. Similar to claim 4, a possible correction would read - - wherein the monitoring - -.
Regarding claim 24, is rendered unclear because of the limitation “wherein indirectly monitoring”. Similar to claim 4, a possible correction would read - - wherein the indirectly monitoring - -.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under 112(d) for failing to further limit
claim 1 on which it depends because claim 1 requires “upon determining the occurrence of an arc event, recording … a time and date that the arc event occurs” (lines 12-13) which is commensurate in scope to the claimed “recording a time stamp representing an instantaneous time at which the arc event occurred” (lines 1-3 of claim 21).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 to Fig. 4 item 54) and “processing module” (corresponding to Fig. 4-item 52) in claim 16 to 18.
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.
Regarding to claim 25, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method for
detecting an arc event (Figs. 1-2 Item 50 discloses the processing the light detection
signal coming, the arc, the line voltage / current, the arc generation position Page 2)
between a power bus and a power coupler of an electric vehicle, comprising:
monitoring an electrical connection between the power bus and the power
coupler of the electric vehicle for the occurrence of an optical event (page 5, paragraph 2), wherein monitoring includes
i)directly monitoring (by 20a) the electrical connection between the power
bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16 discloses catenary wire 16 Page 2) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 12 & 14 discloses the current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12 on the electric car roof 10 Page 3) and
ii) indirectly monitoring (by 20b) the electrical connection between the power
bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16 discloses catenary wire 16 Page 2) and the power coupler
(Figs. 1-2 Item 12 & 14 discloses the current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12 on
the electric car roof 10 Page 3); and
determining the occurrence of an arc event based on characteristics of the
optical event (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20b are provided with arc sensors 21 a and 21 b having the same structure, respectively, and each arc sensor 21 a and 21 b has a lens and a filter 22a and 22b Page 4);
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 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(a) 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7, 9, 11-12, and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR 200444401 Y1 in view of TERFLOTH et al. (DE 102017217450 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
874
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 1, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses a method for detecting
a location of an arc event (Figs. 1-2 Item 50 discloses the processing the light detection signal coming,
the arc, the line voltage / current, the arc generation position Page 2) between a power
bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16 discloses catenary wire 16 Page 2) and a power coupler (Figs.
1-2 Item 12 & 14 discloses the current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12 on the
electric car roof 10 Page 3) of an electric vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item
10 discloses the electric car roof 10 Page 2), comprising:
monitoring an electrical connection between the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item
16 discloses catenary wire 16 Page 2) and the power coupler (Figs.
1-2 Item 12 & 14 discloses the current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12 on the
electric car roof 10 Page 3) of the electric vehicle for the occurrence of an optical event (page 4, paragraph 7) wherein monitoring includes
i)directly monitoring (by 20a) the electrical connection between the power
bus and the power coupler (14, figure 2), and
ii) indirectly monitoring (by 20b) the electrical connection between the
power bus and the power coupler (14, figure 2, where while 20b is directly monitoring
area C it is also considered to be indirectly monitoring area B);
determining the occurrence of an arc event (page 5, paragraph 2); based on
characteristics of the optical event (page 5, 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 (Fig. 1 2 discloses evaluation of arcs to determine as additional or alternative characteristics and all measured values determined here are also logged together with the time stamp in Page 6 Paragraph [0003-0004]).
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. Terfloth teaches associating detected events with timestamps for tracking and analysis. Incorporating such timestamping into KR 20044401 would have been a predictable use of known techniques to improve event monitoring and enable subsequent evaluation and analysis of arc events.
Regarding to claim 2, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein monitoring the electrical connection (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses
the controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two optical detectors 20a
and 20b to detect a break Page 2) includes obtaining optical data of the interface
(Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical
detector 20b are provided with arc sensors 21 a and 21 b having the same structure,
respectively, and each arc sensor 21 a and 21 b output to the signal processing unit 50
Page 4),
Regarding to claim 3, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1,
wherein monitoring the electrical connection (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses the
controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two optical detectors 20a and
20b to detect a break Page 2) includes obtaining optical data from a plurality of optical sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses
optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20b Page 4), wherein each optical sensor has a different field of view relative to other optical sensors of the
plurality of optical sensors. (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical
detector 20a and the optical detector 20b on left and right sides Page 4).
Regarding to claim 4, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein determining includes:
filtering the optical data (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses an
optical detecting unit equipped with a filter, and storing the optical detecting unit Page 4); and
using the filtered data to detect the occurrence of the arc event (Figs. 1-2
Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses an optical and Arc detecting unit equipped with a filter, and storing the optical detecting unit Page 4);
Regarding to claim 7, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4, wherein filtering includes
determining an origin of the optical event based on a
comparison of light intensity detected by each sensor, and concluding an arc
event has not occurred when the origin does not correspond to the electrical
connection (Figs. 1-2 the controller 60 compares the UV arc light
detected by the two optical detectors 20a and 20b to detect a break Page 2) between
the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 12 & 14) of
the electric vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50 discloses signal processor is characterized
in that the detection of the two left and right arc sensors to compare the UV arc light and
to process the arc generation time, arc duration Page 4).
Regarding to claim 9, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4, wherein a first sensor (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a discloses an optical and Arc
detecting unit equipped with a filter, and storing the optical detecting unit Page 4) of the
plurality of sensors has a direct or complete view of the interface and other
sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 b discloses an optical and Arc detecting unit equipped with a
filter, and storing the optical detecting unit) of the plurality of sensors have a partial
or indirect view of the interface, and filtering includes concluding an arc event
has not occurred if an amplitude of light detected by the first sensor is less than
an amplitude of light detected by the other sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50
discloses signal processing unit is characterized in that it is made to perform a function
related to the basic arc detection except for the arc comparison function to another healthy arc sensor when one arc sensor is broken Page 4).
Regarding to claim 11, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4, wherein filtering includes excluding optical data obtained for
predetermined locations of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50 discloses signal
processing unit is characterized in that it is made to perform a function related to the
basic arc detection except for the arc comparison function to another healthy arc sensor
when one arc sensor is broken Page 4).
Regarding to claim 12, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein recording a position of the electric vehicle comprises
recording coordinates at which the arc event occurred (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50
discloses signal processing unit controls sensors arranged and compare and analyze
measured values (arc strength) of two sensors to accurately measure the arc's location
and arc intensity. Page 4).
Regarding to claim 14, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein recording a position of the electric vehicle comprises
recording a specific segment of the power bus at which the arc event occurred
(Figs. 1-2 Item60 discloses a controller 60 on which data processing S / W is mounted,
and a train Signal Page 4).
Regarding to claim 15, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein recording a position of the electric vehicle comprises
recording a linear distance between two stations (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses a
controller for controlling the arc, the line voltage / current, and the arc generating
position received by the signal processor in association with the speed and the position
path of the electric vehicle, and the tilting of each optical detector Page 4).
Regarding to claim 16, KR 200444401 Y1 as modified (citations to KR
200444401 Y1 unless otherwise indicated) discloses a system for detecting
a location of an arc event between an electric power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16
discloses catenary wire 16) and a power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 12 & 14 discloses the
current collector plate 14 of the pantograph 12 on the electric car roof 10) of an electric
vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item 10 discloses the electric car roof 10) operatively coupled to
the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16 discloses catenary wire 16), comprising:
a sensor module including plurality of sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & &
21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20 b Page 4), configured to obtain optical data (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20 b are provided with arc sensors 21 a and 21 b having the same structure, respectively, and each arc sensor 21 a and 21 b has a lens and a filter 22a and 22b Page 4); and
a processing module (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50 discloses signal processor
Page 4) communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors module (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20 b Page 4), the processing module including logic configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1; Figs. 1-2 Item 20 & 50 discloses signal processor is characterized in that the detection of the two left and right arc sensors to compare the UV arc light and to process the arc generation time, arc duration, Page 4).
Regarding to claim 17, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the system according
to claim 16, where the plurality of sensors comprises an optical sensor. (Figs. 1-
2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector 20b
Page 4).
Regarding to claim 18, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the system according
to claim 17, wherein the plurality of sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b) comprises a
plurality of optical sensors (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b), at least one of the optical
sensors having a direct view (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a) of an electrical connection (Figs.
1-2 Item 60 discloses the controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two
optical detectors 20a and 20b to detect a break Page 2) between the
power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 14 & 12), of the
electric vehicle, and at least one other sensor having a partial or indirect view
(Figs. 1-2 Item 20 b) of the electrical connection (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses the
controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two optical detectors 20a and
20b to detect a break Page 2) between the power bus and the power coupler of the
electric vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item 10 discloses the electric car roof 10 Page 2),
Regarding to claim 19, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the electric vehicle
(Figs. 1-2 Item 10 discloses the electric car roof 10), comprising the system
according to claim 1.
Regarding to claim 20, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the electric vehicle
according to claim 19, wherein the electric vehicle (Figs. 1-2 Item 10 discloses the
electric car roof 10), comprises one of a bus, train (Figs. 1-2 Item 10 discloses the
electric train or trolley roof 10), or streetcar.
Regarding to claim 21, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1.
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach wherein recording a
time and date the time 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 (Fig. 1 2 discloses evaluation of arcs to determine as additional or alternative characteristics and all measured values determined here are also logged together with the time stamp in Page 6 Paragraph [0003-0004]).
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. Terfloth teaches associating detected events with timestamps for tracking and analysis. Incorporating such timestamping into KR 20044401 would have been a predictable use of known techniques to improve event monitoring and enable subsequent evaluation and analysis of arc events.
Regarding to claim 22, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein monitoring includes using
a first sensor (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a) having a direct view of the electrical
connection between the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 14 & 12), and
using a second sensor (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 b has partial view) having an indirect view of the electrical connection between the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 14 & 12),
Regarding to claim 23, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according to
claim 1, wherein monitoring includes
using a first sensor (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a) having a direct line of site to the
electrical connection (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses the controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two optical detectors 20a and
20b to detect a break Page 2) between the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the
power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 14 & 12), and
using a second sensor (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 b has partial view) having an
indirect line of site to the electrical connection (Figs. 1-2 Item 60 discloses the
controller 60 compares the UV arc light detected by the two optical detectors 20a and
20b to detect a break Page 2) between the power bus (Figs. 1-2 Item 16) and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item 14 & 12),
Regarding to claim 24, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 1, wherein indirectly monitoring (Figs. 1-2 Item 20 b has partial view) the
electrical connection between the power bus and the power coupler (Figs. 1-2 Item
14 & 12), comprises measuring light generated by the arc after the generated light
is reflected Figs. 1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the
optical detector 20b measure light direct or indirect (reflected) Page 4) from a surface
(Figs. 1-2 Item 50 discloses the processing the light detection signal coming, the arc,
the line voltage / current, the arc generation position Page 2).
Claim 5-6, 8 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR 200444401 Y1 in view of TERFLOTH et al. (DE 102017217450 A1) in view of Land et al. (US 20070014060 A1).
Regarding to claim 5, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4.
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach 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
However, Land teaches a time required for the optical event (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses photodiode detector 73 for detecting the bright flash from an arcing fault.in Paragraph [0064]) 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 (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses photodetection has several constraints to qualify as a potential arc detection. The detection must exceed a preset intensity threshold to trigger an indication of a potential arc. The indication must last, i.e., exceed the intensity threshold, for a preset amount of time (the typical range being between 2 and 52 milliseconds) in Paragraph [0059 & 0069]).
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 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 as taught by Land in order to improve the early detection of arc faults to prevent systems explosions and costly repairs and replacement of equipment in Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding to claim 6, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 5, wherein a first sensor of the plurality of sensors has a direct or
complete view of the interface and other sensors of the plurality of sensors (Figs.
1-2 Item 20 a & b & & 21a & b discloses optical detector 20a and the optical detector
20b Page 4) have a partial or indirect view of the interface, and filtering further
includes
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach concluding an arc
event has occurred if the time required to reach maximum intensity is less than a predetermined time period and an amplitude of light detected by the first sensor is greater than an amplitude of light detected by the other sensors, and
concluding an arc event has not occurred if the time required to reach maximum intensity is greater than the predetermined time period or the amplitude of light detected by the first sensor is less than an amplitude of light detected by the other sensors.
However, Land teaches concluding an arc event (Fig. 1-10 Item 73
discloses photodiode detector 73 for detecting the bright flash from an arcing fault.in Paragraph [0064]) has occurred if the time required to reach maximum intensity is less than a predetermined time period and an amplitude of light detected by the first sensor is greater than an amplitude of light detected by the other sensors (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses photodetection has several constraints to qualify as a potential arc detection. The detection must exceed a preset intensity threshold to trigger an indication of a potential arc. The indication must last, i.e., exceed the intensity threshold, for a preset amount of time (the typical range being between 2 and 52 milliseconds) in Paragraph [0059 & 0069]);
concluding an arc event has not occurred (Fig.1-10 Item 73 discloses photodetector 73, as shown in FIG. 8. The self-test imitates an arcing fault through a self-test light 93; the test can measure appropriate response to both a light pulse of appropriate duration (e.g., greater than 2 or 52 milliseconds) and to false alarm conditions where the light is too short to be indicative of an arcing fault. in Paragraph [0059 & 0069]) if the time required to reach maximum intensity is greater than the predetermined time period or the amplitude of light detected by the first sensor is less than an amplitude of light detected by the other sensors (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses photodetection has several constraints to qualify as a potential arc detection. The detection must exceed a preset intensity threshold to trigger an indication of a potential arc. The indication must last, i.e., exceed the intensity threshold, for a preset amount of time (the typical range being between 2 and 52 milliseconds) in Paragraph [0059 & 0069]);
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 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 as taught by Land in order to improve the early detection of arc faults to prevent systems explosions and costly repairs and replacement of equipment in Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding to claim 8, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4, wherein filtering includes.
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach determining an
intensity of the optical event detected by each sensor;
comparing the intensity of the optical event as detected by each
sensor to predetermined thresholds; and
concluding an arc event has not occurred when the intensity does not
fall within a prescribed intensity range.
However, Land teaches determining an intensity of the
optical event detected by each sensor (Fig. 1-10 Item 73
discloses photodiode detector 73 for detecting the bright flash from an arcing fault.in Paragraph [0064]);
comparing the intensity of the optical event as detected by each
sensor to predetermined thresholds (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses the individual detectors, conditions, filters, performs threshold comparisons validates conditions for an arcing fault in Paragraph [0059 & 0061]);
and
concluding an arc event has not occurred when the intensity does not
fall within a prescribed intensity range (Fig. 1-10 Item 73 discloses photodetector 73, as shown in FIG. 8. The self-test imitates an arcing fault through a self-test light 93; the test can measure appropriate response to both a light pulse of appropriate duration (e.g., greater than 2 or 52 milliseconds) and to false alarm conditions where the light is too short to be indicative of an arcing fault. in Paragraph [0059 & 0069])
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 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 as taught by Land in order to improve the early detection of arc faults to prevent systems explosions and costly repairs and replacement of equipment in Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding to claim 10, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 4,
However, KR 200444401 Y1 does not explicitly teach 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. (Fig. 1-7 Item 73 & 72 discloses processing core 72, whether it is a microcontroller, digital signal processor (DSP), programmable logic, or fixed binary logic, may read all the detectors, condition (e.g., perform filtering, timing, threshold comparisons) and fuse the data, and make a decision as to the validity of the detection in Paragraph [0054]).
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 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 as taught by Land in order to improve the early detection of arc faults to prevent systems explosions and costly repairs and replacement of equipment in Paragraph [0022]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KR 200444401 Y1 in view of TERFLOTH et al. (DE 102017217450 A1) in further view of Craig et al. (US 2007/0000744 A1).
Regarding to claim 13, KR 200444401 Y1 discloses the method according
to claim 12,
However, KR 200444401 Y1 and TERFLOTH does not explicitly teach
wherein recording coordinates include using a geographic positioning system (GPS) to obtain the coordinates of the electric vehicle.
However, Craig teaches wherein recording coordinates includes using a
geographic positioning system (GPS) to obtain the coordinates of the electric vehicle (Fig. 1-3 Item 4 discloses, the control provides location unit is provided (e.g. a GPS unit) this accurately locates the position of the current collector where the crack damage occurred in Paragraph [0037 & 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KR 200444401 Y1 and TERFLOTH to include wherein recording coordinates include using a geographic positioning system (GPS) to obtain the coordinates of the electric vehicle as taught by Craig in order to provide a global positioning system ("OGPS") may be used as the locating means in Paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights