DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-16 have been amended. Claims 5-6, 11-12 and 17-18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-16 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 rejections, and avoided invoking 112(f) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, each and every 101 rejections have been withdrawn, and all 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn.
However, the amendments invoke new 112(f) interpretations directed to claims 1-4 and 7-10, as stated in the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 7 and 13 to further specify:
an electrical blackout detection system for detecting an electrical blackout due to occurrence of a disaster,
a detector configured to detect occurrence of an electrical blackout,
wherein the information indicating the state of the transformer is information indicating at least one of a state of vibration of the transformer and a state of an operating sound of the transformer, and
wherein the electrical blackout detection system further comprises at least one processor configured to, in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, cause a display to display at least one of a position and an area where the electrical blackout has occurred in an overlapping manner on a map.
The teachings of SHIODA, TAN, Kiesel and Kann as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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 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 limitations are:
"detector" in claims 1-4 and 7-10.
By broadest interpretation, “detector” is equivalent to “detection unit” which is 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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 7-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIODA JP H0368112 A in view of TAN CN 104143814 A, Kiesel US 20210123797 A1 and Kann US 20160109491 A11.
Regarding claim 1, SHIODA teaches an electrical blackout detection system for detecting an electrical blackout due to occurrence of a disaster, the electrical blackout detection system (Fig. 1 page 1 lines 10-15 from the bottom, optical fiber backscattered light for transformer temperature sensing. The recited “for detecting an electrical blackout due to occurrence of a disaster” is merely intended use that does not bear patentability (MPEP 2114 (II)) comprising:
an optical fiber configured to detect a state of a transformer (Fig. 1 page 1 lines 10-15 and lines 21-25 from the bottom, an optical fiber connected to backscattered light measuring device, traveling along the electric line and passing through pole transformer to detect the temperature of the transformer);
a receiver configured to receive, from the optical fiber, an optical signal including information indicating the state of the transformer (Fig. 1 page 1 lines 10-15; and lines 21-25 from the bottom, the backscattered light measuring device detecting the temperature of the transformer based on the return of the backward scattered light from the optical fiber), and
a detector configured to detect occurrence of abnormal operation, based on the information indicating the state of the transformer, the information being included in the optical signal (page 2 lines 20-22, the abnormality of the pole transformer is detected based on the detected temperature of the transformer); and
the electrical blackout detection system further comprises at least one processor (page 2 lines 20-22, the backscattered light measuring device 6).
SHIODA does not explicitly further teach:
the abnormal operation is an electrical blackout;
the information indicating the state of the transformer is information indicating at least one of a state of vibration of the transformer and a state of an operating sound of the transformer; and
in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, cause a display to display at least one of a position and an area where the electrical blackout has occurred in an overlapping manner on a map.
TAN explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the abnormal operation is an electrical blackout ([0027] the transformer stops working due to lost power, the temperature of transformer drops, indicating an electrical blackout);
Kiesel explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the information indicating the state of the transformer is information indicating at least one of a state of vibration of the transformer and a state of an operating sound of the transformer (Fig. 10 [0087] [0088] optical fiber with optical fiber detectors in transformer, [0035] [0057] optical fiber detector detecting vibration and acoustic signals, Figs. 6A&B [0078] the amplitude of detected signals indicating the transformer energized or not); and
Kann explicitly teaches in an analogous art that in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, cause a display to display at least one of a position and an area where the electrical blackout has occurred in an overlapping manner on a map (Fig. 10 [0074] [0092] the area where the transformer indicating not electrically connected is overlaid on a map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIODA to incorporate the teachings of TAN, Kiesel and Kann, because they all directed to transformer operations, to make the system wherein the abnormal operation is an electrical blackout; the information indicating the state of the transformer is information indicating at least one of a state of vibration of the transformer and a state of an operating sound of the transformer; and in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, cause a display to display at least one of a position and an area where the electrical blackout has occurred in an overlapping manner on a map. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide maintenance, as TAN teaches in [0027].
Regarding claim 2, SHIODA further teaches the detector identifies an operating state of the transformer, based on information indicating the state of the transformer (page 2 lines 20-22, the abnormality of the pole transformer is detected based on detected temperature); and
TAN further teaches in a case where the transformer has stopped operation, the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred (TAN: [0027] the transformer stops working due to lost power, the temperature of transformer drops, indicating an electrical blackout has occurred).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIODA to incorporate the teachings of TAN, because they all directed to transformer operations, to make the system wherein in a case where the transformer has stopped operation, the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide maintenance, as TAN teaches in [0027].
Regarding claim 3, SHIODA further teaches an installation position of the transformer, based on the optical signal, and identifies the installation position of the transformer as a position where the power failure has occurred (page 2 lines 14-20, back scattered light detection detecting the temperature with distance resolution to identify the corresponding transformer).
Regarding claim 4, Kann further teaches in an analogous art that in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, the detector identifies an area that receives power supply from the transformer that has stopped operation, and identifies the area that receives power supply from the transformer as an area where the electrical blackout has occurred (Fig. 10 [0074] [0092] the area where the meters receiving power from the corresponding transformer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIODA incorporate the teachings of Kann, because they all directed to transformer operations, to make the system wherein in a case where the detector determines that an electrical blackout has occurred, the detector identifies an area that receives power supply from the transformer that has stopped operation, and identifies the area that receives power supply from the transformer as an area where the electrical blackout has occurred. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to indicate the transformer undergoing a change, as Kann teaches in [0092].
Regarding claims 7-10, they are directed to a device of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-4 respectfully. Since SHIODA, TAN, Kiesel and Kann teach the claimed system, they teach the device for implementing the system.
Regarding claims 13-16, they are directed to a method of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-4 respectfully. Since SHIODA, TAN, Kiesel and Kann teach the claimed system, they teach the method steps for implementing the system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 SHIODA, TAN, Kiesel and Kann are the prior arts of record