DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7, filed 11/11/2025 with respect to U.S.C. 102 rejection and U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cho (WO 2021/1010808 A9) does not teach all the limitations of the independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant to the rejection below.
Applicant argues that Cho does not disclose from claim 1, “determining a voltage difference between an output of a first device in the system and an input of a second device in the system”. Specifically, the applicant argues that Cho is teaching monitoring a voltage difference across a whole system, , whereas the claimed invention of claim 1 is directed to monitoring a voltage difference between two particular points within the system as determined by the output of a first device and an input of a second device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cho discloses determining power loss based on determining a voltage difference between an output of a first device in the system and an input of a second device in the system in [0025] found in the google translation “measures basic physical quantities such as line voltage and current of the supply terminal and the load terminal in the live state, and converts line resistance and line loss power in real time to estimate the amount of heat that may occur on the line,” and Cho further illustrates [0081] “Figures 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19) show implementation examples of a technology for detecting the occurrence of a fire in advance by monitoring voltage drop (i.e., difference) or power loss between the two ends (supply end and receiving end) of a line, which are easy to measure among electrical abnormalities in a power grid.” Where Fig. 12-15, and 19 show systems with multiple devices in the systems of which the voltage drop (i.e., difference) can be measured from the input of the first device to the output of the last device. The applicants’ arguments that this is for an entire system holds truth, however the number of devices in a given system does not have to be more than two. There is no limitation that indicating that measurement of the system cannot measure the voltage drop between two or more devices, so long as the voltage drop can be measured between two devices (and input and an output device). Furthermore, there is no limitation indicating that there cannot be an unlimited number of devices between the input device and the output device so long that the voltage drop is measured. Limitations that are not claimed are not addressed by the rejection. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (WO 2021/1010808 A9).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches, obtaining voltage or current information at a plurality of points in said system ([0022] found in the google translation); determining a power loss between two of said plurality of points (“power loss in a line” [0033] found in the google translation); wherein the step of determining a power loss includes a step of determining a voltage difference between an output of a first device in the system and an input of a second device in the system” ([0025] found in the google translation, and to further illustrate [0081] “Figures 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19” show implementation examples of a technology for detecting the occurrence of a fire in advance by monitoring voltage drop (i.e., difference) or power loss between the two ends (supply end and receiving end) of a line, which are easy to measure among electrical abnormalities in a power grid.” Where Fig. 12-15, and 19 show systems with multiple devices in the systems of which the voltage drop (i.e., difference) can be measured) and further indicating the abnormal electrical condition when the determined voltage difference exceeds a predetermined voltage difference based on an expected resistance and an expected current between said first and second devices ([0025], found in the google translation, where the ability to “notifying a manager before it develops into a major problem or removing the cause to prevent it” implies that there is a comparison between a predetermined value and the physical quantities measured in real time for the system to send a warning notification., and further illustrated in [0096-0099] where the equations show the dependence on the difference between the supplied voltage and the receiving voltage (i.e., voltage difference) depends on load current (i.e., expected current across devices) and load resistance (i.e., expected resistance across devices), where it was noted in [0081] that these equations can be used for multi-device systems as demonstrated in Figs 12-15, and 19.), identifying a determined power loss exceeding a predetermined power loss threshold as an indication of an abnormal electrical condition ([0033] “if power loss between the supply and receiving ends is measured in real time and analyzed (processed through the following process), abnormal signs of danger can be detected (i.e., indication of an abnormal electrical condition).” Where [0036] “If the power exceeds the set standard (i.e., exceeding a predetermined power loss threshold) , the power supplied to the load is cut off to prevent ignition. This dissipated power can be a cause of ignition even if it is within the allowable current of the overload cutoff device (14). In this case, the maximum line loss power (PLn) can reach 25% of the load rated power (PLO) (RLn/RL=1). Therefore, even if the same line conditions are present, the greater the load's rated power, the greater the threat.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Cho teaches, obtaining voltage or current information at a plurality of points in said system ([0022] found in the google translation); determining a power loss between two of said plurality of points (“power loss in a line” [0033] found in the google translation); wherein the step of determining a power loss includes a step of determining a voltage difference between an input of a first device in the system and an output of the first device in the system ([0039], found in the google translate attachment, and to further illustrate [0195] “The above lower node receives the supply voltage ( 203T) of the above upper node and subtracts its own voltage (load voltage, 401) to obtain the voltage drop (voltage difference, 405)), i.e., the voltage drop reflecting the characteristics of the line.”), and further indicating the abnormal electrical condition when the determined voltage difference exceeds a predetermined voltage difference based on an expected current at said input and at said output ([0039], found in the google translate attachment “In the simple series network shown in Fig. 2, the current at the supply terminal and the current at the receiving terminal are the same (i.e., input output, respectively), so the voltage at the supply terminal (Vs), the voltage at the receiving terminal (VL), and the load current (IL) can be measured to obtain the line loss power (PLn} using the following formula”).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho teaches, obtaining voltage or current information at a plurality of points in said system ([0022] found in the google translation); determining a power loss between two of said plurality of points (“power loss in a line” [0033] found in the google translation); wherein the step of determining a power loss includes a step of determining a resistance between an output of a first device in the system and an input of a second device in the system” ([0032], found in the google translation, and to further illustrate [0022] “The present invention detects abnormal signs of fire by measuring basic electrical characteristics such as voltage and current at a power supply end and a load end in an energized state of an electric circuit, and by measuring and analyzing electrical characteristics such as line resistance, connection parasitic resistance, power lost in a line, leakage current, maximum allowable current of a line, overload, occurrence of arc phenomenon, and current instability in real time and tracking changes therein in real time.” Where when using line in reference to a measurement function [0010] “This means that when a single line is used in a power system with multiple loads, it is dependent on a single line protection mechanism.”), and further indicating the abnormal electrical condition when the determined resistance exceeds a predetermined resistance based on an expected resistance between said first and second devices ([0042], found in the google translation “Here, PLO: rated load power, RLnO: normal line resistance, Rp: abnormal loss power generated from the parasitic resistance (RPara, RFs) of the line.”) .
Regarding Claim 11, Cho teaches, obtaining voltage or current information at a plurality of points in said system ([0022] found in the google translation); determining a power loss between two of said plurality of points (“power loss in a line” [0033] found in the google translation); wherein the step of determining a power loss includes a step of determining a resistance difference between an input of a first device in the system and an output of the first device in the system ([0081], and to further illustrate [0044] (using the google translation) “PLO shows the trend of load power (PL} and line loss power (PLn) according to the increase in the parasitic resistance (Rp) of the line at a load with rated power, and the relative power loss (PLn/ PLO) is shown in Figures 3 and 4. The line loss power (PLn) occurs when the line resistance (RLn=RLno+Rp) and the load resistance (RL), resulting in the maximum power loss in the line.” Where in fig 12-15 and 19 there are multiple devices each with their own load resistance across them (i.e., from the device input to the same devices output)) , and further indicating the abnormal electrical condition when the determined resistance difference exceeds a predetermined resistance difference based on an expected current at said input and at said output ([0083] “Fig. 10 shows the change in line power loss according to line resistance change at a constant load. As the line resistance increases, the line power loss also shows an increasing trend and reaches a maximum value when it has the same value as the load resistance.” Where [0036] “If the power exceeds the set standard, the power supplied to the load is cut off to prevent ignition. This dissipated power can be a cause of ignition even if it is within the allowable current of the overload cutoff device (14}. In this case, the maximum line loss power (PLn) can reach 25% of the load rated power (PLO) (RLn/RL=1 }. Therefore, even if the same line conditions are present, the greater the load's rated power, the greater the threat.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the predetermined voltage difference is set as an absolute voltage difference ([0137] “If the absolute value and phase of the voltage are measured, the internal impedance can be obtained with a single voltage measuring means.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the predetermined voltage difference is set based on the obtained current information between said first and second devices ([0039] found in the google translation “In the simple series network shown in Fig. 2, the current at the supply terminal and the current at the receiving terminal are the same, so the voltage at the supply terminal (Vs), the voltage at the receiving terminal (VL), and the load current (IL} can be measured to obtain the line loss power (PLn)”, where [0185] “Figure 14 shows the configuration of a power supply unit ( 200) and a receiving unit ( 400) added to detect faults and accidents on the line that may occur in the power system.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Cho teaches the limitation of claim 5.
Cho further teaches, wherein the predetermined voltage difference is set as an absolute voltage difference ([0137] “This is a measuring method that measures the no- load voltage, measures the load voltage, connects the reference resistor to the measured terminal, measures the load voltage, and measures the change in voltage with the reference load to find out the internal synthetic impedance. If the absolute value and phase of the voltage are measured, the internal impedance can be obtained with a single voltage measuring means.)
Regarding Claim 7, Cho teaches the limitation of claim 5.
Cho further teaches wherein the predetermined voltage difference is set based on the obtained current information between said first and second devices ([0039], found in the google translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho teaches the limitation of claim 8.
Cho further teaches wherein the predetermined resistance difference is set based on the obtained current information [0058].
Regarding Claim 13, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Cho further teaches wherein the predetermined resistance difference is set based on the obtained current information at said input or at said output [0084].
Regarding Claim 14, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the obtaining step is performed using existing data collection equipment associated with the system [0271-0272].
Regarding Claim 15, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the determining or identifying steps are performed using existing computational devices associated with the system (Fig 13 through 18, [0252-0261]).
Regarding Claim 16, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the obtaining step is performed using existing data collection equipment associated with the system and the determining or identifying steps are performed using existing computational devices associated with the system ([0018] found in the google translation; [0387]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Cho further teaches wherein the obtaining step is performed using existing data collection equipment associated with the system and the determining or identifying steps are performed using existing computational devices associated with the system ([0018] found in the google translation; [0387]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Cho further teaches wherein the obtaining step is performed using existing data collection equipment associated with the system and the determining or identifying steps are performed using existing computational devices associated with the system ([0018] found in the google translation; [0387]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Cho further teaches wherein the obtaining step is performed using existing data collection equipment associated with the system and the determining or identifying steps are performed using existing computational devices associated with the system ([0018] found in the google translation; [0387]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cho further teaches wherein the abnormal electrical condition includes arcing in wiring, a loose crimp, a damaged wire, a partially unseated connector, or a loose screw ([0029] found in the google translation).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Stamer (US 2016/0140836 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 and 12, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 8 and 11 respectively.
Cho does not teach, wherein the predetermined resistance difference is set as an absolute resistance difference.
Stamer teaches, wherein the predetermined resistance difference is set as an absolute resistance difference ([0051] found in the google translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the resistance difference discussed in Stamer to the measurement system in Cho because the resistance different being the absolute difference would allow the measurement system to “utilize the absolute value of the line resistance to signal faults on the control lines” ([0050], found in the google translation).
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 Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863